Category: ENVIRONMENT

There is an urgent need for psychological support for cancer patients. The KAPA3 team explains and advocates for this

There is an urgent need for psychological support for cancer patients. The KAPA3 team explains and advocates for this

Every day, healthcare professionals are called upon to communicate with, assess, and, above all, support people who are going through cancer.

Does cancer affect only physical health, or does it also have a profound impact on a person’s psychological, social, and emotional life? The needs that arise during the course of the illness are many and are often accompanied by the question: “What does the disease really bring to a person’s life?” A cancer diagnosis brings about significant changes in daily life, relationships, social roles, and the way a person perceives themselves and their future.

A cancer diagnosis is an extremely stressful event, often accompanied by feelings of fear, uncertainty, anxiety, and grief. At the same time, patients are called upon to cope with the effects of treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Changes in physical appearance, fatigue, pain, and limitations in daily functioning can significantly affect their self-esteem and quality of life (Pitman et al., 2018).

Uncertainty regarding the course of the disease and the likelihood of relapse are significant sources of psychological distress. The extent of this phenomenon is reflected in the meta-analysis by Mitchell et al. (2011), which included 94 studies and more than 14,000 cancer patients. According to the results, 16.3% of patients met the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, 10.3% for anxiety disorder, and 19.2% for adjustment disorder.

These data highlight that a significant proportion of cancer patients experience severe psychological distress, a fact that underscores the need for specialized psychological support.

Furthermore, cancer often affects an individual’s family and social relationships. The patient may be forced to limit or abandon professional and social roles, while the family is called upon to adapt to new demands and responsibilities, experiencing significant psychological strain of their own (Northouse et al., 2010).

Cancer patients have an increased need for psychological support, as the disease significantly affects their psychological, social, and emotional functioning. Fear of the disease’s progression, uncertainty about the future, the side effects of treatments, and the possibility of recurrence are major sources of psychological distress. At the same time, the experience of cancer is often accompanied by feelings of loss of control, fear, and emotional distress. The contemporary psycho-oncology literature recognizes that the early identification of psychosocial needs and the provision of appropriate interventions are an integral part of holistic oncology care (Caruso & Breitbart, 2020; Mehnert-Theuerkauf et al., 2023).

Within this context, psychological support is a key component of holistic care for cancer patients. Holistic care refers to a comprehensive approach that takes into account not only the patient’s physical needs but also the psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of their health. Counseling, psychotherapy, and support groups provide a safe space for expressing emotions and building psychological resilience (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN], 2024).

At the same time, they help improve adherence to treatment, strengthen cooperation with healthcare professionals, and maintain quality of life. As Holland and Weiss (2008) argue, psychosocial care is an integral part of high-quality oncology care, from diagnosis through the survival phase.

In conclusion, the experience of cancer is a complex and multidimensional process that affects every aspect of a person’s life. Managing the disease is not limited solely to physical treatment but requires the recognition and addressing of the psychological and social needs that arise at every stage. Providing timely and systematic psychological support can empower the patient, improve their ability to adapt to the demands of treatment, and contribute significantly to maintaining their dignity, hope, and quality of life. Psychological care should be regarded as a fundamental right of every cancer patient and as an integral part of modern oncology practice.

Coordination of Psychological and Social Services within the Framework of Psychosocial Care

The care of cancer patients is not limited to treating the disease and its physical effects. The needs that arise during treatment are often multifaceted and concern both the individual’s psychological well-being and practical, social, or financial issues that affect their daily life.

For this reason, effective support requires close collaboration among different healthcare professionals within a shared framework of psychosocial care. Within this framework, the Social Services and Psychological Services operate in a complementary manner, with the shared goal of enhancing the individual’s quality of life and overall adjustment to the experience of illness.

A client’s contact with the service can begin either through the Social Services Department or the Psychological Services Department. During the initial contact, an assessment of the client’s needs is conducted, and information is provided about all available support services.

Regardless of the initial request, the beneficiary is informed about the option of receiving psychological support, as the experience of cancer is often accompanied by heightened psycho-emotional needs that are not always apparent from the first contact. With their consent, an internal referral can be made to the Psychological Services Department for further evaluation and support.

The Psychological Services Department is responsible for the initial assessment, obtaining informed consent, and creating an individual support file. A structured series of sessions is then provided, tailored to the beneficiary’s needs. During this process, issues may arise related to social benefits, employment challenges, financial burdens, disability certification procedures, or other practical needs that significantly impact the daily functioning of the individual and their family. In such cases, and always with the beneficiary’s consent, cooperation with Social Services is initiated, and Social Services assumes responsibility for managing the relevant social and administrative matters.

The collaboration between the two services enables the timely identification of new needs and ensures continuity of care. Social Services focuses on the practical, social, and administrative aspects of support, while Psychological Services focuses on psychological resilience, emotional processing of the experience of the disease, and adaptation to the changes it brings about. The collaboration between the two services allows for a more comprehensive response to the needs of the cancer patient. In this way, a unified framework of psychosocial care is established that provides substantial support to the patient and their support network at all stages of their journey with the disease.

At the same time, regular communication and coordination between the two services allow for the timely identification of new needs and ensure continuity of care. The Social Services Department focuses on the practical, social, and administrative aspects of support, while the Psychological Services Department focuses on psychological resilience, emotional processing of the experience of the disease, and adaptation to the changes it brings about. The collaboration between the two services enables a more comprehensive response to the needs of cancer patients. In this way, a unified framework of psychosocial care is established that provides substantial support to the patient and their support network at all stages of their journey with the disease.

 

Kapa3 – Cancer Patient Guidance Center

Together, with knowledge, care, and a human touch.

Contact us:

https://www.kapa3.gr/epikoinonia/ by typing “Psychological Support” in the Message box

OR CALL

2105221424 – info@kapa3.gr

Athens: 13 Kostis Palamas Street, 3rd floor, (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM) 6982003282

Understanding Breast Cancer Risk Factors: What You Can and Can’t Change

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month — a time to raise awareness, share knowledge, and remind ourselves of the importance of early detection and prevention. One of the most common questions people ask is: “What can I do to lower my risk of breast cancer?”

The truth is that while doctors don’t know exactly what causes breast cancer, research has identified certain factors that increase the likelihood of developing the disease. Some of these are beyond our control, while others are linked to lifestyle choices and can be modified. By learning the difference, we empower ourselves to take the best possible care of our health.

Unchangeable Risk Factors

Some risk factors cannot be avoided. These include:

  • Sex: Being female or assigned female at birth is the biggest risk factor.
  • Age: Risk increases with age; two out of three invasive breast cancers occur in women 55 or older.
  • Family History and Genetics: A family history of breast cancer or inherited genetic mutations (such as BRCA1/2) increases risk.
  • Personal History: Women previously diagnosed with breast cancer are more likely to develop it again.
  • Past Radiation: Radiation to the chest or face before age 30 raises risk.
  • Certain Breast Conditions: Some non-cancerous breast changes are linked to higher risk.

Lifestyle-Related Risk Factors

Our daily habits and choices also play a significant role:

  • Weight: Being overweight, especially after menopause, increases risk.
  • Physical Activity: Lack of regular exercise is linked to higher risk.
  • Smoking and Alcohol: Both are associated with increased breast cancer risk.
  • Hormonal Factors: Use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or hormonal contraception may raise risk in some women.
  • Reproductive History: Age at first childbirth, number of pregnancies, and breastfeeding history all influence risk.
  • Menstrual History: Early onset of menstruation is associated with slightly higher risk.

Emerging Risk Factors

Research is ongoing, but some additional factors are being studied, such as:

  • Low vitamin D levels.
  • Night-shift work and exposure to bright light at night.
  • Exposure to chemicals (in food, plastics, cosmetics, sunscreens, pesticides, pollution).
  • Frequent consumption of grilled or smoked meats.
  • High levels of air pollution.

Myths and Misconceptions

It’s equally important to clear up what does not increase risk. Research shows no evidence that abortion, antiperspirants, bras, or dairy products cause breast cancer.

We may not be able to control every risk factor, but every small step toward a healthier lifestyle truly makes a difference. Exercise, balanced nutrition, limiting alcohol, and avoiding smoking are not just prevention measures — they’re acts of daily self-care.
At Kapa3, we believe that awareness and support save lives. No one is ever alone on this journey. We promise to continue to speak openly, share knowledge, and stand beside every woman. Because awareness is not about fear; it’s about strength, hope, and small steps toward a healthier tomorrow.

Read More here: https://www.breastcancer.org/risk/risk-factors

Text/Adaptation: Ifiyenia for Kapa3

How to Find the Right Oncologist for You

After a cancer diagnosis, it’s one of the most important decisions you’ll make.

After a career as a golf professional in southeastern New Mexico, Doug Lyle, 76, decided he had somewhere better to be than on the course: spending time with his new grandchild. Then this summer, just as he was settling into retirement, he learned he had prostate cancer.

“When you’re first diagnosed, you immediately go to the internet, and you can be overwhelmed in short order,” he said. “The more you read about it, the more complicated it gets.”

One of the first and most important choices he had to make was who his oncologist would be. Many of the two million patients diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year get the news from a primary care doctor. Those patients might accept a referral to an oncologist without question. But research suggests that it’s worth considering the choice closely: It can shape the care you receive, your satisfaction with the treatment and your chances of survival.

Not everyone has a choice of oncologists. There are fewer providers in rural areas, and patients must travel farther to reach them. Insurers may only cover certain clinicians and hospitals. And patients from certain populations have less access to oncologists for a range of reasons, which may affect the care they receive. For example, research suggests that Black and Hispanic women with breast cancer are more likely than white women to experience delays in starting radiotherapy. And Black men with prostate cancer are less likely than white men to receive treatment that’s intended to cure their condition, even when they’re at similar stages of disease.

No matter your circumstances, you should feel empowered to have a say in who treats your cancer.

Ideally, experts said, you’d be able to easily compare doctors’ levels of experience and the outcomes of patients they’ve treated with your same diagnosis. But such apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make. But “right now, there are no publicly available data to help a patient with cancer say, ‘Oh, this is where I want to go,’” said Dr. Nancy Keating, a physician and professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. (And even if there were, apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make, since patient populations vary from one doctor to the next).

Still, there are some accreditations to look for. The National Cancer Institute has given a special designation to 72 cancer centers, which must show they treat patients in accordance with the latest evidence and also conduct research into new therapies. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has accredited over 1,500 programs that meet certain standards. And the American Society of Clinical Oncology has several certification programs, including a list of 300 practices recognized for their quality and safety.

There are resources to help you search for oncologists, too, including a U.S. News & World Report directory that lets you sort by location, patient reviews and accepted forms of insurance. The consumer research firm Castle Connolly also has a database of doctors who are nominated by their peers and then evaluated for their qualifications, interpersonal skills and more.

Look for an oncologist who frequently treats patients with diagnoses similar to yours. Research has long shown that when doctors perform certain procedures more often, their patients have better outcomes. One study found that patients of surgeons who removed more than 25 lung cancers a year spent less time in the hospital, had a lower risk of infection and were more likely to survive three years without recurrence of disease.

Dr. Timothy Pawlik, the chair of the surgery department at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said he only treats a handful of cancers. “You want someone with depth, not breadth,” Dr. Pawlik said. That way, he explained, “the patient may have a rare cancer, but it’s not rare to that doctor.”

Additionally, everyone else on the care team including the anesthesiologists and nurses, will also be familiar with your particular cancer and treatment.

Your primary care provider may be able to find someone specializing in your diagnosis. Some physicians’ websites will identify sub-specialties, and you can also ask for guidance from patient advocacy groups focused on your type of cancer. When you reach out to a doctor, don’t be shy about asking how many patients with similar cancers they treat per year.

Mr. Lyle hesitated to get a second opinion for fear of offending the first doctor he’d seen. But he ultimately chose to do so, a step many experts recommend. “Medicine is an art, and there are sometimes differences of opinion,” said Karen Knudsen, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society. Weighing those differences can help you make a more informed choice.

If a second physician agrees with your original treatment plan, it can give you more confidence in the approach. Research suggests a second opinion can also lead to clinically meaningful changes in treatment. One 2023 study of 120 cancer patients found that a for a third of patients, a second opinion led to treatment changes that yielded better outcomes. Many had received evidence-based care from their first doctor but decided after a second opinion to scale back treatments that might have been unnecessary and had harmful side effects.

Mr. Lyle said that during his first conversation with a physician, he didn’t know enough to ask the right questions about his diagnosis and newer treatment options. “The fine points, you’re not aware of yet. So you almost need a rehearsal,” he said. (For help with what to ask during an appointment, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network has detailed information about care for many cancers.)

When it is clinically appropriate, some cancer centers now offer second opinions through telehealth. You can call to see if it’s possible to submit your medical records and get a remote consultation.

Find more:

Commercial determinants of health: how they are driving up rates of cancer and other NCDs

A new report from the WHO Regional Office for Europe looks at the impacts of the commercial determinants of health

Tobacco, alcohol, highly processed foods and fossil fuel industries cause 19 million deaths per year globally. These shocking statistics, reported in Commercial Determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region, show how commercial activities are harming our health and increasing the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer (WCRF International contributed to two case studies to this report, one on civil society engagement and one on alcohol warning labels).

The commercial determinants of health (CDOH) assess how commercial industries and their products can influence and impact the overall health and health equity of people, and whole societies.

Impacts of CDOH are felt across society, from the individual consumer, their health behaviours and choices, extending to global levels of consumption, and the politics and economics of increasing globalisation.

Health-harming industries

Commercial determinants that negatively impact health involve products from unhealthy commodity industries, which produce and sell health-harming products such as:

  • tobacco
  • alcohol
  • highly processed foods
  • and fossil fuels

The recent WHO/Europe report shows how exposure to these health-harming products is driving up already exceptionally high rates of cancer and other NCDs globally.

In the European Region alone, almost two thirds (61.3%) of deaths caused by NCDs can be attributed directly to risk factors linked to unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco consumption.

This equates to an estimated 2.7m deaths annually, or more than 7,400 deaths every day. Many of these deaths could be prevented with reduced exposure to these commercial products.

Corporate channels of influence

You will certainly have experienced commercial forces at play in the world in both visible and invisible ways. Industries influence and impact health, and undermine policymaking through the following corporate channels:

  • marketing and advertising
  • engaging in corporate social responsibility strategies and activities
  • lobbying governments and policymakers; and
  • deflecting attention away from their role and responsibilities in causing health harms

Marketing and advertising enhance the acceptability and desirability of health-harming products. Often selling a certain lifestyle, aesthetic or experience, it normalises these products as part of everyday life, as well as more aspirational ways of living.

Marketing and promotions have been found to disproportionately target low socioeconomic status or minority populations, with industry tactics ranging from timing marketing campaigns to coincide with the distribution of benefits from food assistance programmes, to aiming advertisements directly at children.

Corporate social responsibility activities serve to improve corporate brands and reputations. Coca-Cola or PepsiCo’s frequent sponsorship of sports teams, events, and funding children’s physical activity programmes seeks to shift focus away from how their own products contribute to the obesity epidemic, and instead reflect favourably on their support for physical activity promotion.

DrinkAware, an alcohol-industry funded health information organisation, promotes “responsible drinking” campaigns (despite alcohol being classified as a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to 7 types of cancer), and engages in partnerships with government and public health agencies.

Lobbying governments and policymakers works to avoid or circumvent regulation. Examples include the food and beverage industry’s opposition to sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, or the alcohol industry’s use of legal threats to stop the implementation of health warning labels.

Public health experts are also targeted through less obvious channels, such as Coca-Cola’s emails to the US Centre for Disease Control (obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests) to advance corporate objectives over health, including trying to influence the WHO.

Other tactics include funding research and political parties to sway the evidence base and policymakers in their favour—influencing all levels of policy, from scientific evidence through to policy development and implementation.

Where does the buck stop?

Perhaps the most significant and insidious tactic used by health-harming industries is their deflection of responsibility. Industry uses the rhetoric of ‘personal responsibility’, ‘individual’ or ‘freedom of choice’ around the consumption of their products.

These messages shift the blame away from health-harming industries, and onto their customers. This argument is used not only to shape societal views around consuming tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods, but also in legal arguments to deny or downplay their responsibility and liability for the costs they impose on society.

Do not be mistaken: these efforts are intentionally well-crafted and funded. Health-harming industries seek to protect their own interests and offload their responsibility at the expense of public health. These narratives serve to manufacture doubt and increase uncertainty in the public, while simultaneously undermining trust in government agencies and scientific evidence to normalise the prevalence and use of their products.

Is addressing commercial determinants of health anti-business?

It’s also important to recognise what addressing CDOH is not. Addressing CDOH is not anti-business; but rather, it challenges the existing status quo and power imbalances. It also does not assume a solely negative impact: it accounts for industry actors to drive health and equity in either direction.

Profitable business and health promotion do not need to be mutually exclusive. For example, a coalition of Nestlé shareholders (co-ordinated by Share Action) has filed a resolution to challenge the company to increase their proportion of sales from healthier products.

Work to address CDOH is also not an attack on the free market, or personal liberties. It is about a consumer’s right to know about the risks involved with consuming a harmful product.

Say for instance you had a higher risk of developing breast cancer. Would knowing that drinking alcohol increases your risk of developing it, or 6 other types of cancer, impact whether you decide to consume alcohol? When buying products, would you want to be thoroughly informed about the risks you take?

Interestingly, critics of responses aimed to address CDOH often (knowingly or unknowingly) follow the same script taken straight from health-harming industries’ playbook.

This upholds the narrative that responsibility solely rests with the individual and does not hold corporations accountable for the health impacts of their products, or their influence through the four corporate channels.

Getting rid of the industry playbook; reframing the issues

But this criticism is misplaced: rather than effecting a ‘nanny-state’ or ‘prohibition’, addressing CDOH is an act to abolish and break free from the false-narratives and manipulation that industries employ for their own profit and gains.

Given the scale and size of transnational corporations, some with incomes higher than GDPs of whole countries, putting a focus on the CDOH and their impacts will have a global effect.

This is a movement to shift the focus and alignment of political will in a direction that better serves public health and health outcomes, including the reduction of health inequities, and incidence of cancer and other NCDs.

For more information on CDOH
> WHO Europe Report Commercial Determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region – the report also contains a number of case studies, which WCRF International has contributed to.

Discovering the multi-level contribution of AI to the NHS

Following the recent announcement of increased funding for artificial intelligence within the NHS by the Chancellor in the Spring 2024 programme highlights the importance of stabilising the healthcare system and securing the leading position in healthcare delivery on a global scale. In order to maximise the patient benefit and staff satisfaction through the full utilisation of the use of AI, it is useful to develop an action plan with proactive next steps.

Step 1: Focus on the right priorities

There are many high-impact use cases such as waiting list management. By developing AI algorithms and data-driven decision support tools to predict patient demand, optimize scheduling, and efficient allocation of resources, healthcare facilities can significantly reduce wait times and enhance patient satisfaction. Through our work with NHS Trusts it has been shown that the development of AI-based programming tools has resulted in An increase in patient preference within imaging. Artificial intelligence can also help to enhance the support of  office services. Experience so far has shown a significant reduction in the time to review a contract with the use of artificial intelligence.

Step 2: Cultivating staff acceptance

An important aspect of any AI initiative is cultivating trust and acceptance from frontline staff. As clinicians focus on refining their clinical judgment and providing personalized care it makes sense that they approach the integration of AI with caution. To avoid this hesitation it is important that strict trials of an evidence-based implementation. Furthermore, the syndrome of ”that it was not manufactured here” prevents and forces individual executives to actively engage and convince their clinical communities of tangible evidence of AI adoption. One approach to fostering staff buy-in is active involvement from the outset in the design of the programme design.  The use of the “Net Promoter Score”, which measures staff enthusiasm for a particular technology, is a strong incentive for engagement and could potentially help. Also in cases where staff know that the technology is supported by their colleagues, after a pilot project, it is more more likely to want to participate themselves. Another useful approach is for the clinician to present his or her own prediction alongside any AI prediction, allowing the staff to make their own prediction to immediately see how the AI compares. Using this method, we can show that an AI algorithm was more predictive of the day a patient would be ready to leave than the clinician’s own estimate.

Step 3: Integrating the technology into the standard

Considering a user-driven approach to process redesign has the dual impact of bring the affected parties – for example, staff, patients and carers – together on the journey, while also helping to ensure that change is not just a digitisation of existing processes. THE NHS will need to fund the effort so that by supporting staff to trust and find the budget to deliver the necessary change programme.

Looking forward: A collaborative imperative

Vital to the whole effort will be the collaboration between government, the NHS leadership, frontline staff and the technology partners. Latest research has shown that 74% of organisations recognize that AI can make their operations more efficient, and a staggering 84% do not believe they are equipped to do so to make it a reality. While the Chancellor’s investment in AI represents a significant moment, the result is testament to how capable we are of navigating the complexities of implementation effectively and provide frontline organisations with the support they need.

Read more: Transforming through Data,page 116 Article from Jenny Lewis under the title ”  Unlocking the Potential of AI in the NHS: A Path Forward’

H.M._2-vol 24-2024 (1)