Multidisciplinary and eHealth care approaches for cancer patients’ families: nationwide bereavement survey

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Families of patients with cancer often experience significant psychological distress, yet family care remains insufficiently addressed in current healthcare systems. This study aimed to investigate the acceptability of alternative care delivery methods among families of patients with cancer to seek insights into feasible and sustainable approaches to family-inclusive cancer care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of bereaved family members was conducted as part of the nationwide Japan Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation Study 5. The survey assessed the prevalence of unmet family-care needs, acceptability of care provided by various professionals through different communication modalities and eHealth literacy using the eHealth Literacy Scale. RESULTS: Participation was accepted by 498 bereaved family members. Among these respondents, 36% accepted asynchronous (text-based/AI-automated) communication for at least one aspect of family care. Acceptance rates were: video calls (85%), telephone (60%), text-based methods (34%) and AI-automated messages (12%). A substantial majority (79%) accepted care from professionals other than physicians and nurses. Acceptance increased with younger age and higher eHealth literacy. Significant unmet needs were identified, including information about high-volume cancer centres (45%) and consultation regarding patients' emotional distress (43%). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary involvement and electronic communication methods were promising alternatives for delivering family care, particularly among younger families or those with higher eHealth literacy. Willingness to adopt AI-based support was relatively low, highlighting cultural and psychological barriers to AI adoption in Japan. The approaches could potentially help address family unmet needs while optimising the use of limited healthcare resources in palliative cancer care settings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.