Search

Background: There is a lack of knowledge about the career paths and employment situation of young medical oncologists. The aim of our study was to evaluate the current professional standing of these professionals in Spain. Methods: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology + MIR section conducted a national online survey in May 2021 of young medical oncology consultants (< 6 years of expertise) and final year medical oncology residents. Results: A total of 162 responses were eligible for analysis and included participants from 16 autonomous communities; 64% were women, 80% were consultants, and 20% were residents. More than half of the participants performed routine healthcare activity and only 7% research activity. Almost three quarters (73%) were subspecialized in a main area of interest and almost half of these chose this area because it was the only option available after residency. Half of the respondents (51%) considered working abroad and 81% believed the professional standing in Spain was worse than in other countries. After finishing their residency, only 22 were offered a job at their training hospital. Just 16% of participants had a permanent employment contract and 87% were concerned (score of ≥ 5 on a scale of 1–10) about their job stability. In addition, one quarter of the participants in our study showed an interest in increasing their research activity. Conclusions: The choice of subspecialty in medical oncology may depend on job opportunities after residency rather than personal interest. The abundance of temporary contracts may have influenced the job stability concerns observed. Future mentoring strategies should engage in building a long-term career path for young medical oncologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Burnout in health care professionals (HCPs) results from exposure to psychosocial risks at work. Left unaddressed, burnout can lead to chronic health problems, increased staff turnover, reduced work hours, absenteeism, and early retirement from clinical practice, thus impacting patient care. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force (RTF) was established in December 2019 to support the well-being of oncology HCPs globally. This ESMO RTF position paper aims to provide a set of recommendations to optimise well-being and mitigate burnout in oncology, and to help individuals and institutions maintain the delivery of optimal cancer care., Design: Recommendations were developed by a diverse multinational panel of interprofessional experts based on the key findings from three previously reported ESMO RTF surveys., Results: Several recurrent work-related psychosocial risks in oncology were identified; in particular, concerns about workload and professional development. The need for flexible work patterns, continued use of virtual resources, well-being resources, and targeted support for at-risk groups were highlighted as key considerations to safeguard HCPs' health and prevent burnout. In total, 11 recommendations relating to three priority themes were developed: (i) information and training; (ii) resources; (iii) activism and advocacy., Conclusion: Optimising the well-being of oncology HCPs is essential for the provision of high-quality, sustainable care for patients globally. The ESMO RTF will continue its mission and is rolling out several initiatives and activities to support the implementation of these recommendations., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Burnout (BO) is a recognized challenge among the oncology workforce. It affects both genders with a higher frequency among women. This study examined the factors contributing to the development of burnout among female oncologists from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to oncology professionals from different countries in the MENA region. The validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) of emotional exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DE), and Personal Achievement (PA) plus questions about demography/work-related factors and attitudes toward oncology were included. Data were analyzed to measure BO prevalence and related factors. Results: Between 10 February and 15 March 2020, 545 responses were submitted by female oncologists. The responses pre-dated the COVID-19 pandemic emergence in the region. BO prevalence was 71% among female professionals. Women aged <44 years represented 85% of the cohort. Sixty-two percent were married, 52% with children and one-third practiced a hobby. Two-thirds worked in medical oncology, worked for <10 years and 35% worked in academia. The majority (73%) spent >25% on administrative work daily. Nearly half of the respondents (49%) expressed a recurring thought of quitting oncology and 70% had no burnout support or education. Inability to deliver optimal care was reported as distressing for career development in 82%. Factors significantly influencing the BO risk were identified. Marital status, having children, academia and years in practice did not impact the risk of BO among female oncologists from MENA. Conclusion: Female oncologists from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) were found to have a high prevalence of BO. In this cohort, the majority of women oncology workers were young and in their early to mid-career stages. Burnout was linked to being younger, practicing in North African nations, having a heavy administrative load, and having persistent thoughts of quitting. Practicing a hobby and engaging in oncology communication, on the other hand, reduced the chance of BO. Burnout support and education, specifically for oncology women, is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are popular amongst cancer patients in the Brazilian context, however little is known about oncology health professionals' attitudes toward the role of CAM and their perspectives on the potential for integration into oncological care. In this study, drawing on a series of interviews with oncology professionals (i.e. doctors, nurses, nutritionists, pharmacologists and psychologists), we provide insight into their views on the rise, validity, and role of CAM in cancer care. The results reveal two key dynamics in relation to CAM in cancer care in Brazil. First, that doctors, nurses and other allied professionals hold considerably different views on the value and place of CAM, and in turn ascribe it varying levels of legitimacy potentially limiting integration. Second, that while some health professionals may articulate a degree of support for CAM, this is limited by perceptions of CAM as lacking efficacy and intruding on their respective jurisdictional claims. Further research is needed in the Brazilian context to explore patient and professional perspectives on experiences on CAM in cancer care, including how oncology professionals' varying positions on CAM may influence what patients are prepared to use, or discuss, in the context of cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Macau Journal of Nursing is the property of Macau Journal of Nursing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Increasingly, women are offered genetic testing shortly after diagnosis of breast cancer to facilitate decision-making about treatment, often referred to as 'treatment-focused genetic testing' (TFGT). As understanding the attitudes of health professionals is likely to inform its integration into clinical care we surveyed professionals who participated in our TFGT randomized control study. Thirty-six completed surveys were received (response rate 59 %), 15 (42 %) health professionals classified as genetic and 21 (58 %) as non-genetic. Mainly positive experiences with participating in the TFGT trial were reported. The high cost of testing and who could best deliver information about TGFT to the patient were raised as key constraints to implementation of TFGT in usual care. More non-genetic than genetic health professionals (44 vs 8 %) preferred that the surgeon provide the information for decision-making about TFGT. While costs of TFGT itself and the time and effort of staff involved were perceived barriers, as testing costs become lower, it is expected that TFGT will become a routine part of standard clinical care for patients at high genetic risk in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Society & Social Work is the property of Journal of Society and Social Work and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study reports on oncology professionals'' knowledge and attitude toward complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), classified according to their primary application as complementary or alternative methods. In June 2002, we conducted a national, multicentre survey of 828 Norwegian oncologists, nurses, clerks and therapeutic radiographers. A response rate of 61% was achieved. Only a few physicians (4%) described their reactions to alternative medicine as positive compared with nurses (33%), therapeutic radiographers (32%) and clerks (55%) (P<0.0001). Females showed a more positive view than males (33% versus 14%, P<0.0001). More participants expressed a positive attitude to complementary versus alternative medicines. Most respondents regarded healing by hand or prayer, homeopathy, and Iscador (mistletoe) as alternative therapies. In contrast, most respondents classified acupuncture, meditation, reflexology, music/art-therapy, aromatherapy and massage as complementary therapies. This survey demonstrates major differences, by gender as well as oncology health profession in views about and the classification of various CAM methods [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the well-being and job performance of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate and monitor well-being since COVID-19 in relation to work, lifestyle and support factors in oncology professionals 1 year on since the start of the pandemic., Methods: An online, anonymous survey was conducted in February/March 2021 (Survey III). Key outcome variables included risk of poor well-being or distress (expanded Well-Being Index), feeling burnout (single item from expanded Well-Being Index), and job performance since COVID-19. Longitudinal analysis of responses to the series of three surveys since COVID-19 was carried out, and responses to job demands and resources questions were interrogated. SPSS V.26.0/V.27.0 and GraphPad Prism V9.0 were used for statistical analyses., Results: Responses from 1269 participants from 104 countries were analysed in Survey III: 55% (n = 699/1269) female, 54% (n = 686/1269) >40 years, and 69% (n = 852/1230) of white ethnicity. There continues to be an increased risk of poor well-being or distress (n = 464/1169, 40%) and feeling burnout (n = 660/1169, 57%) compared with Survey I (25% and 38% respectively, P < 0.0001), despite improved job performance. Compared with the initial period of the pandemic, more participants report feeling overwhelmed with workload (45% versus 29%, P < 0.0001). There remain concerns about the negative impact of the pandemic on career development/training (43%), job security (37%). and international fellowship opportunities (76%). Alarmingly, 25% (n = 266/1086) are considering changing their future career with 38% (n = 100/266) contemplating leaving the profession., Conclusion: Oncology professionals continue to face increased job demands. There is now significant concern regarding potential attrition in the oncology workforce. National and international stakeholders must act immediately and work closely with oncology professionals to draw up future-proof recovery plans., Competing Interests: Disclosure KHJL is currently funded by the Wellcome-Imperial 4i Clinical Research Fellowship, and reports speaker honorarium from Janssen, outside the submitted work. KP’s institution received speaker fees or honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann La Roche, Mundipharma, PharmaMar, Seagen, Teva, and Vifor Pharma; KP’s institution received research grants from MSD and Sanofi; KP received travel support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Roche; all outside the submitted work. CO reports research funding and honoraria from Roche; travel grant and honoraria from medac Pharma and Ipsen Pharma; and travel grant from PharmaMar; outside the submitted work. EÉ reports speaker honoraria, travel support and advisory board: Bayer, Roche, Servier, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi Aventis, MSD, and Merck Serono; outside the submitted work. TA reports personal fees from Pierre Fabre and CeCaVa; personal fees and travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); grants, personal fees, and travel grants from Novartis; and grants from NeraCare, Sanofi, and SkylineDx; all outside the submitted work. PG reports personal fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Gilead, and ROVI, outside the submitted work. ML acted as a consultant for Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Novartis, and received honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Lilly, outside the submitted work. CBW reports speaker honoraria, travel support, and participation in advisory boards: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck, Rafael, RedHil, Roche, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, Sirtex, and Taiho, as well as research support from Roche, outside the submitted work. JBAGH reports personal fees for advisory role in Neogene Tx; grants and fees paid to institution from BMS, MSD, Novartis, BioNTech, Amgen; and fees paid to institution from Achilles Tx, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, Vaximm; outside the submitted work. CH reports being Director of a private company Hardy People Ltd, outside the submitted work. SB reports research grant (institution) from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GSK; honoraria for advisory boards or lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD, Merck Serono, OncXerna, Pfizer, Roche, Shattuck Labs, Clovis, Takeda outside the submitted work. KM, KK, MOC, ET, BD, and GM have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to professional and personal lives of oncology professionals globally. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration aimed to provide contemporaneous reports on the impact of COVID-19 on the lived experiences and well-being in oncology., Methods: This online anonymous survey (July-August 2020) is the second of a series of global surveys launched during the course of the pandemic. Longitudinal key outcome measures including well-being/distress (expanded Well-being Index-9 items), burnout (1 item from expanded Well-being Index), and job performance since COVID-19 were tracked., Results: A total of 942 participants from 99 countries were included for final analysis: 58% (n = 544) from Europe, 52% (n = 485) female, 43% (n = 409) ≤40 years old, and 36% (n = 343) of non-white ethnicity. In July/August 2020, 60% (n = 525) continued to report a change in professional duties compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. The proportion of participants at risk of poor well-being (33%, n = 310) and who reported feeling burnout (49%, n = 460) had increased significantly compared with April/May 2020 (25% and 38%, respectively; P < 0.001), despite improved job performance since COVID-19 (34% versus 51%; P < 0.001). Of those who had been tested for COVID-19, 8% (n = 39/484) tested positive; 18% (n = 7/39) felt they had not been given adequate time to recover before return to work. Since the pandemic, 39% (n = 353/908) had expressed concerns that COVID-19 would have a negative impact on their career development or training and 40% (n = 366/917) felt that their job security had been compromised. More than two-thirds (n = 608/879) revealed that COVID-19 has changed their outlook on their work-personal life balance., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the well-being of oncology professionals globally, with significantly more in distress and feeling burnout compared with the first wave. Collective efforts from both national and international communities addressing support and coping strategies will be crucial as we recover from the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, an action plan should also be devised to tackle concerns raised regarding the negative impact of COVID-19 on career development, training, and job security., Competing Interests: Disclosure KHJL is currently funded by the Wellcome-Imperial 4i Clinical Research Fellowship, and reports speaker honorarium from Janssen, outside the submitted work. KP’s institution received speaker fees or honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann La Roche, Mundipharma, PharmaMar, Teva, Vifor Pharma; KP’s institution received a research grant from Sanofi; KP received travel support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Roche; all outside the submitted work. CO reports research funding and honoraria from Roche; travel grant and honoraria from Medac Pharma and Ipsen Pharma; and travel grant from PharmaMar; outside the submitted work. TA reports personal fees from Pierre Fabre and CeCaVa; personal fees and travel grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS); grants, personal fees, and travel grants from Novartis; and grants from Neracare, Sanofi, and SkylineDx; all outside the submitted work. PG reports personal fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Gilead, and ROVI, outside the submitted work. ML acted as a consultant for Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Novartis, and received honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Lilly, outside the submitted work. CBW reports speaker honoraria, travel support, and advisory board: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Roche, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, RedHil, and Taiho; speaker honoraria from Ipsen; and advisory board in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sirtex, and Rafael; outside the submitted work. JBAGH reports personal fees for advisory role in Neogene Tx; grants and fees paid to institution from BMS, MSD, Novartis, BioNTech, Amgen; and fees paid to institution from Achilles Tx, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, Vaximm; outside the submitted work. CH reports being Director of a private company Hardy People Ltd., outside the submitted work. SB reports research grant (institution) from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GSK; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Clovis, Genmab, Merck Serono, Mersana, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro; outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on well-being has the potential for serious negative consequences on work, home life, and patient care. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Resilience Task Force collaboration set out to investigate well-being in oncology over time since COVID-19., Methods: Two online anonymous surveys were conducted (survey I: April/May 2020; survey II: July/August 2020). Statistical analyses were performed to examine group differences, associations, and predictors of key outcomes: (i) well-being/distress [expanded Well-being Index (eWBI; 9 items)]; (ii) burnout (1 item from eWBI); (iii) job performance since COVID-19 (JP-CV; 2 items)., Results: Responses from survey I (1520 participants from 101 countries) indicate that COVID-19 is impacting oncology professionals; in particular, 25% of participants indicated being at risk of distress (poor well-being, eWBI ≥ 4), 38% reported feeling burnout, and 66% reported not being able to perform their job compared with the pre-COVID-19 period. Higher JP-CV was associated with better well-being and not feeling burnout (P < 0.01). Differences were seen in well-being and JP-CV between countries (P < 0.001) and were related to country COVID-19 crude mortality rate (P < 0.05). Consistent predictors of well-being, burnout, and JP-CV were psychological resilience and changes to work hours. In survey II, among 272 participants who completed both surveys, while JP-CV improved (38% versus 54%, P < 0.001), eWBI scores ≥4 and burnout rates were significantly higher compared with survey I (22% versus 31%, P = 0.01; and 35% versus 49%, P = 0.001, respectively), suggesting well-being and burnout have worsened over a 3-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusion: In the first and largest global survey series, COVID-19 is impacting well-being and job performance of oncology professionals. JP-CV has improved but risk of distress and burnout has increased over time. Urgent measures to address well-being and improve resilience are essential., Competing Interests: Disclosure SB reports research grant (institution) from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and GSK; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Clovis, Genmab, Immunogen, Merck Serono, Mersana, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Roche and Tesaro outside the submitted work. KHJL is currently funded by the Wellcome-Imperial 4i Clinical Research Fellowship, and reports speaker honorarium from Janssen outside the submitted work. KP reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann La Roche, Mundi Pharma, and PharmaMar; and other fees paid to institution from Vifor Pharma, TEVA, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. CO reports research funding and honoraria from Roche; travel grant and honoraria from Medac Pharma and Ipsen Pharma; and travel grant from PharmaMar outside the submitted work. ML acted as a consultant for Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Novartis, and received honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Lilly outside the submitted work. CBW reports speaker honoraria, travel support, and serving on the advisory board in Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Roche, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, RedHill, and Taiho; speaker honoraria from Ipsen; and advisory board in GSK, Sirtex, and Rafael outside the submitted work. PG reports personal fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Gilead, and ROVI outside the submitted work. TA reports personal fees from Pierre Fabre and CeCaVa; personal fees and travel grants from BMS; grants, personal fees, and travel grants from Novartis; and grants from NeraCare, Sanofi, and SkylineDx outside the submitted work. JBAGH reports personal fees for advisory role in Neogene Tx; grants and fees paid to institution from BMS, MSD, Novartis, BioNTech, Amgen; and fees paid to institution from Achilles Tx, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, and Vaximm outside the submitted work. CH reports private company Hardy People Ltd. outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 ESMO. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)