Search

International audience; PurposeManagers' actions can facilitate the return to work (RTW) process for breast cancer survivors (BCS). However, data on BCS' experiences of managers' actions regarding RTW are dispersed across multiple qualitative studies and do not offer useful insights for managers to support employees returning to work. This study aimed to summarize and map managers' actions experienced by BCS over three RTW phases (before, during, after) and categorize them as facilitating or hindering RTW.MethodsA scoping review of qualitative studies was conducted. Four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2022. Studies and participant characteristics were extracted using an excel spreadsheet. A thematic analysis with a predominantly deductive and semantic approach was conducted.ResultsTwenty-nine studies were included after screening 1042 records. Five themes were generated from the data. Two themes addressed the phase 'before RTW': 'managers' interpersonal skills' and 'preparing for RTW'; three in the 'during RTW' phase: 'managers' interpersonal skills', 'offering work flexibility', and 'offering work accommodations', and only one, 'paying attention to follow-up', was addressed in the 'after RTW' phase.ConclusionThis review mapped managers' actions experienced by BCS in three phases of the RTW process. Results suggested that, according to BCS, managers need to mobilize specific skills to provide appropriate support during the RTW process. Further research is needed to better understand the skills underlying managers' actions facilitating the RTW process.

Purpose Patient autonomy is a key concept in medical ethics, which consists of recognizing each person as a free individual capable of judging and determining for himself or herself. The objectives of this study were to describe digestive cancer patients’ desire for autonomy in therapeutic decision-making and to identify variables associated with these preferences. Methods An observational prospective study in a French university cancer center has been conducted. Patients completed two questionnaires to qualify and quantify their desire for autonomy in therapeutic decision-making: the Control Preference Scale (CPS) and the Autonomy Preference Index (API), which is composed of the Decision Making (DM) score and the Information Seeking (IS) score. Associations between these scores and socio-demographic data, disease-related data, coping strategies (Brief-COPE), physical (QLQ-C30) and psychological (HADS) quality of life were tested. Results One-hundred fifteen patients returned the questionnaires. The majority of patients reported a passive (49.1%) or a collaborative (43.0%) CPS status. The mean DM score was 51.5. Variables associated with decision-making preferences were occupational status and time since diagnosis. Conclusion The identification of variables associated with patients' preferences for autonomy and participation in decision-making can help make clinicians aware of patients' needs and wishes. However, it can only be determined by interviewing the patient individually.

Background:Cancer patients (CPs) are considered more vulnerable and as a high mortality group regarding COVID-19. In this analysis, we aimed to describe asymptomatic COVID (+) CPs and associated factors.Methods:We conducted a prospective study in CPs and health care workers (HCWs) in 4 French cancer centers (PAPESCO [ PAtients et PErsonnels de Santé des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer pendant l’épidémie de COvid-19] study). This analysis used data recorded between June 17, 2020 and November 30, 2020 in CPs (first 2 waves, no variants). At inclusion and quarterly, CPs reported the presence of predefined COVID-19 symptoms and had a blood rapid diagnostic test; a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done in case of suspected infection.Results:A total 878 CPs were included; COVID-19 prevalence was similar in both CPs (8%) and HCWs (9.5%); of the 70 CPs (8%) who were COVID (+), 29 (41.4%) were and remained asymptomatic; 241/808 of the COVID (−) (29.8%) were symptomatic. 18 COVID (+) were hospitalized (2% of CPs), 1 in intensive care unit (ICU) and 1 died (0.1% of CPs and 2.4% of symptomatic COVID [+] CPs). Only the inclusion center was associated with clinical presentation (in Nancy, Angers, Nantes, and Clermont-Ferrand: 65.4%, 35%, 28.6%, and 10% CPs were asymptomatic, respectively).Conclusions:Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in CPs was similar to that observed in HCWs; mortality related to COVID-19 among CPs was 0.1%. More than 40% of COVID (+) CPs were asymptomatic and one third of COVID (−) CPs had symptoms. Only geographic origin was associated with the presence or absence of symptoms. Social distancing and protective measures must be applied in CPs at home and when hospitalized.

Simple Summary COVID-19 has some clinical manifestations that are similar to the side effects of cancer treatments such that cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms from those of their treatments. The PAPESCO-19 study investigated 13 COVID-19 symptoms and confirmed that in combination with anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea, anosmia has a strong association with COVID-19 for cancer patients while dysgeusia/ageusia does not. Abstract Background: Cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms such as anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, anorexia, headache, and fatigue, which are frequent after cancer treatments. We aimed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 and to assess the strength of their association in cancer and cancer-free populations. Methods: The multicenter cohort study PAPESCO-19 included 878 cancer patients and 940 healthcare workers (HCWs). At baseline and quarterly thereafter, they reported the presence or absence of 13 COVID-19 symptoms observed over 3 months and the results of routine screening RT-PCR, and they were systematically tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We identified the symptom combinations significantly associated with COVID-19. Results: Eight percent of cancer patients were COVID-19 positive, and 32% were symptomatic. Among the HCWs, these proportions were 9.5 and 52%, respectively. Anosmia, anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea together accurately discriminated (c-statistic = 0.7027) COVID-19 cases from cancer patients. Anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle pain, intense fatigue, headache, and chest pain better discriminated (c-statistic = 0.8830) COVID-19 cases among the HCWs. Anosmia had the strongest association in both the cancer patients (OR = 7.48, 95% CI: 2.96–18.89) and HCWs (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.21–14.75). Conclusions: COVID-19 symptoms and their diagnostic performance differ in the cancer patients and HCWs. Anosmia is associated with COVID-19 in cancer patients, while dysgeusia/ageusia is not. Cancer patients deserve tailored preventive measures due to their particular COVID-19 symptom pattern.

International audience; PURPOSE: While studies on patients' quality of life (QoL) are numerous, to date few have addressed the issue of what QoL means for doctors and how they use patient-reported QoL. This study aimed to explore how doctors define the concept of "patient QoL" and how they use QoL assessments in clinical practice. METHODS: Focus group (FG) interviews were conducted with French hospital doctors and general practitioners. Transcripts of the FGs were explored using inductive thematic and lexical analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinicians participated in four FGs. They all agreed that QoL was a subjective and unstable concept, different from that of health status. In practice, the assessment of patient QoL was conducted using an intuitive and non-structured approach. Most participants thought that it would give them more confidence in making decisions and provide better patient care. But it was also seen in some cases as putting them in an uncomfortable position. The assessment of QoL requires a favourable work and organizational setting. CONCLUSIONS: Patient QoL provides useful data for clinicians. Yet assessments are made without standardized tools. The use of such tools could be very valuable for some practitioners or in some situations, and a real source of problems for others. These problems could, however, be easily overcome with experience-sharing and training clinicians.

International audience; Do people treat horoscopes as mere entertainment, or does reading horoscopes have more substantial consequences? Building upon research on the expectancy effect as well as on literature highlighting the influence of astrology on individuals, we hypothesized that reading positive versus negative horoscopes would affect people's perceptions, emotions, cognitions, and creativity. Across three experiments, reading positive versus negative astrological forecasts increased positive interpretation of ambiguous events (Experiment 1, N=195), cognitive performance (Experiment 2, N=189), and creativity (Experiment 3, N=193). Furthermore, positive (versus negative) horoscopes decreased negative emotions among people who believe in astrology and the effects of horoscopes on cognitive performances and creativity were stronger among people with a low internal locus of control. Opening newspapers and searching for daily horoscopes have more consequences than one may initially think.