Objective Cancer patients, carers and oncology health professionals have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways, but their experiences and psychosocial responses to the pandemic are still being explored. This study aimed to document the experience of Australians living with cancer, family carers, and Oncology health professionals (HPs) when COVID-19 first emerged. Methods In this qualitative study, participants (cancer patients currently receiving treatment, family carers and HPs) completed a semi-structured interview exploring their experiences of COVID-19 and the impact it had on cancer care. Participants also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (patients) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (carers and HPs) to assess emotional morbidity. Thematic analysis was undertaken on qualitative data. Results 32 patients, 16 carers and 29 HPs participated. Qualitative analysis yielded three shared themes: fear and death anxiety, isolation, and uncertainty. For HPs, uncertainty incorporated the potential for moral distress and work-stress. Patients and carers scoring high on anxiety/depression measures were more likely to have advanced disease, expressed greater death anxiety, talked about taking more extreme precautionary measures, and felt more impacted by isolation. Conclusion Cancer and COVID-19 can have compounding psychological impacts on all those receiving or giving care. Practice Implications Screening for distress in patients, and burnout in HPs, is recommended. Increased compassionate access and provision of creative alternatives to face-to-face support are warrented.

There is limited knowledge about cancer patients' experiences of uncertainty while waiting for genome sequencing results, and whether prolonged uncertainty contributes to psychological factors in this context. To investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely hereditary origin while waiting for genome sequencing results, we collected questionnaire and interview data at baseline, and at three and 12 months follow up (prior to receiving results). Participants (N = 353) had negative attitudes towards uncertainty (M = 4.03, SD 0.68) at baseline, and low levels of uncertainty at three (M = 8.23, SD 7.37) and 12 months (M = 7.95, SD 7.64). Uncertainty about genome sequencing did not change significantly over time [t(210) = 0.660, p = 0.510]. Greater perceived susceptibility for cancer [r(348) = 0.14, p < 0.01], fear of cancer recurrence [r(348) = 0.19, p < 0.01], perceived importance of genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.24, p < 0.01], intention to change behavior if a gene variant indicating risk is found [r(349) = 0.29, p < 0.01], perceived ability to cope with results [r(349) = 0.36, p < 0.01], and satisfaction with decision to have genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.52, p < 0.01] were significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards uncertainty at baseline. Multiple primary cancer diagnoses [B = −2.364 [−4.238, −0.491], p = 0.014], lower perceived ability to cope with results [B = −0.1.881 [−3.403, −0.359], p = 0.016] at baseline, greater anxiety about genome sequencing (avoidance) [B = 0.347 [0.148, 0.546], p = 0.0012] at 3 months, and greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing [B = 0.494 [0.267, 0.721] p = 0.000] at 3 months significantly predicted greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 12 months. Greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 3 months significantly predicted greater anxiety (avoidance) about genome sequencing at 12 months [B = 0.291 [0.072, 0.509], p = 0.009]. Semi-structured interviews revealed that while participants were motivated to pursue genome sequencing as a strategy to reduce their illness and risk uncertainty, genome sequencing generated additional practical, scientific and personal uncertainties. Some uncertainties were consistently discussed over the 12 months, while others emerged over time. Similarly, some uncertainty coping strategies were consistent over time, while others emerged while patients waited for their genome sequencing results. This study demonstrates the complexity of uncertainty generated by genome sequencing for cancer patients and provides further support for the inter-relationship between uncertainty and anxiety. Helping patients manage their uncertainty may ameliorate psychological morbidity.

Objective In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, use of telehealth to deliver care was recommended across the Australian health system. This study aims to explore the barriers and enablers to delivery of psycho‐oncology services via telehealth and attitudes to use of telehealth in psycho‐oncology. Methods Twenty‐one psycho‐oncology clinicians participated in semi‐structured telephone interviews. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed using the framework method. Results Three key themes were identified which described the overall experience of delivering psycho‐oncology services via telehealth: (1) Context Matters‐for whom is telehealth effective, when is it less effective; (2) Therapy content and telehealth implementation; (3) Recommendations for Sustainability. Conclusions These insights into the barriers and enablers to delivering psycho‐oncology services via telehealth inform future research and clinical practice. While there is support for the continued use of telehealth in psycho‐oncology, there are significant improvements needed to ensure effective implementation and continued benefit.

Objective To determine the reported effect of online communication skills training (CST) on health professional (HP) communication skills and patient care outcomes in cancer and palliative care. Methods Primary research published in English between January 2003 and April 2019 was identified in bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase and Proquest (Prospero: CRD42018088681). An integrated mixed‐method approach included studies describing a CST intervention and its effect, for cancer or palliative care HPs, delivered online or blended with an online component. Included studies' outcomes were categorised then findings were stratified by an evaluation framework and synthesised in an effect direction plot. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's tools. Results Nineteen included studies (five randomised controlled trials, 11 pre‐post, two post‐test and one qualitative study) evaluated a CST intervention (median duration = 3.75 h; range 0.66–96 h) involving 1116 HPs, 422 students and 732 patients. Most interventions taught communication skills for specific scenarios and approximately half were delivered solely online and did not involve role plays. Online CST improved HPs' self‐assessed communication skills (three studies, 215 participants), confidence (four studies, 533 participants), and objective knowledge (five studies, 753 participants). While few studies evaluated patient outcomes, CST may benefit observed communication skills in care settings (two studies, 595 participants). Conclusions Online CST benefits oncology HPs' subjectively‐reported communication skills and confidence, and objective knowledge. Translation to patient outcomes requires further investigation. The quality of research varied and few studies had a control group. We recommend improvements to study design, evaluation and implementation.

No abstract