METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer patients who were diagnosed at least 1 year prior to recruitment, and either had paid work, were self-employed, currently unemployed, or currently retired (N = 66).
RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) loss of income: While some participants were entitled for a 1-year cancer-specific sick leave, many other participants recounted having insufficient paid sick leave, forcing them to take prolonged unpaid leave to complete treatment; (2) dealing with side effects of cancer and its treatment: The need for workplace accommodations was highlighted including flexible working hours, lighter workloads, and dedicated rest areas to enable patients to cope better; (3) Discrimination and stigma at workplace: Some participants mentioned being passed over on a promotion, getting demoted, or being forced to resign once their cancer diagnosis was disclosed, highlighting an urgent need to destigmatize cancer in the workplace.
CONCLUSION: In settings with limited employment protection policies, a cancer diagnosis severely impacts the working experiences of patients, leading to financial loss. Urgent interventions and legislative reforms are needed in these settings to address the unmet employment needs of cancer survivors.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study may facilitate planning of local solutions to fulfill the unmet employment needs following cancer, such as return-to-work navigation services.
METHODS: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 Asian patients with cancer from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. Thematic analysis was performed.
RESULTS: While most participants, especially younger patients with young children, experienced intense emotional distress upon receiving a cancer diagnosis, those with a family history of cancer were relatively calm and resigned. Nonetheless, the prior negative experience with cancer in the family made affected participants with a family history less eager to seek cancer treatment and less hopeful for a cure. Although a majority viewed the presence of family members during the breaking of bad news as important, a minority opted to face it alone to lessen the emotional impact on their family members. Difficulties disclosing the news of a cancer diagnosis to loved ones also emerged as an important need. Sensitive and empathetic patient-physician communication during the breaking of news of a cancer diagnosis was stressed as paramount.
CONCLUSION: A patient-centered communication approach needs to be developed to reduce the emotional distress to patients and their families after the breaking of bad news of a cancer diagnosis. This is expected to positively affect the patients' subsequent coping skills and attitudes toward cancer, which may improve adherence to cancer therapy.
Methods: Data were derived from 20 focus group discussions that were conducted in five public and private Malaysian hospitals, which included 102 adults with breast, cervical, colorectal or prostate cancers. The discussions were segregated by type of healthcare setting and gender. Thematic analysis was performed.
Results: Five major themes related to cancer costs emerged: 1) cancer therapies and imaging services, 2) supportive care, 3) complementary therapies, 4) non-medical costs and 5) loss of household income. Narratives on out-of-pocket medical costs varied not only by type of healthcare setting, clinical factors and socioeconomic backgrounds, but also by private health insurance ownership. Non-health costs (e.g. transportation, food) and loss of income were nonetheless recurring themes. Coping mechanisms that were raised included changing of cancer treatment decisions, continuing work despite ill health and seeking financial assistance from third parties. Unmet needs in coping with financial distress were especially glaring among the women.
Conclusion: The long-term costs of cancer (medications, cancer surveillance, supportive care, complementary medicine) should not be overlooked even in settings where there is access to highly subsidised cancer care. In such settings, patients may also have unmet needs related to non-health costs of cancer and loss of income.
Method: From 2016 to 2017, 2,127 women newly-diagnosed with breast cancer were prospectively recruited. Participants' cardiovascular biomarkers were measured prior to adjuvant treatment decision-making. Clinical data and medical histories were obtained from hospital records. Adjuvant treatment decisions were collated 6-8 months after recruitment. A priori risk of cardiotoxicity was predicted using the Cardiotoxicity Risk Score.
Results: Mean age was 54 years. Eighty-five patients had pre-existing cardiac diseases and 30 had prior stroke. Baseline prevalence of hypertension was 47.8%. Close to 20% had diabetes mellitus, or were obese. Dyslipidaemia was present in 65.3%. The proportion of women presenting with ≥2 modifiable CVD risk factors at initial cancer diagnosis was substantial, irrespective of age. Significant ethnic variations were observed. Multivariable analyses showed that pre-existing CVD was consistently associated with lower administration of adjuvant breast cancer therapies (odds ratio for chemotherapy: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.58). However, presence of multiple risk factors of CVD did not appear to influence adjuvant treatment decision-making. In this study, 63.6% of patients were predicted to have high risks of developing cardiotoxicities attributed to a high baseline burden of CVD risk factors and anthracycline administration.
Conclusion: While recent guidelines recommend routine assessment of cardiovascular comorbidities in cancer patients prior to initiation of anticancer therapies, this study highlights the prevailing gap in knowledge on how such data may be used to optimise cancer treatment decision-making.