Background: Effective patient–family communication can reduce patients’ psychosocial distress and relieve family members’ current suffering and their subsequent grief. However, terminally ill patients and their family members often experience great difficulty in communicating their true feelings, concerns, and needs to each other. Aim: To develop a novel means of facilitating meaningful conversations for palliative patients and family members, coined Dignity Talk, explore anticipated benefits and challenges of using Dignity Talk, and solicit suggestions for protocol improvement. Design: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Dignity Talk, a self-administered question list, was designed to prompt end-of-life conversations, adapted from the Dignity Therapy question framework. Participants were surveyed to evaluate the Dignity Talk question framework. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Setting/participants: A total of 20 palliative patients, 20 family members, and 34 healthcare providers were recruited from two inpatient palliative care units in Winnipeg, Canada. Results: Most Dignity Talk questions were endorsed by the majority of patients and families (>70%). Dignity Talk was revised to be convenient and flexible to use, broadly accessible, clearly stated, and sensitively worded. Participants felt Dignity Talk would be valuable in promoting conversations, enhancing family connections and relationships, enhancing patient sense of value and dignity, promoting effective interaction, and attending to unfinished business. Participants suggested that patients and family members be given latitude to respond only to questions that are meaningful to them and within their emotional capacity to broach. Conclusion: Dignity Talk may provide a gentle means of facilitating important end-of-life conversations.

Each year over 20,000 Canadian women are diagnosed with breast cancer. Many breast cancer survivors anticipate a considerable number of years of potential participation in the paid labour market, therefore, the link between breast cancer survivorship and productivity deserves serious consideration. The hypothesis guiding this study is that arm morbidities such as lymphedema, pain, and range of motion limitations are important explanatory variables in survivors' loss of productivity. The study draws from a larger longitudinal research project involving over 600 breast cancer survivors in four geographical locations across Canada. The study's regression results indicate that, after adjusting for fatigue, breast cancer stage, and geographical location, survivors with range of motion limitations and arm pain are more than two and half times as likely to lose some productivity capacity as compared to counterparts with no arm morbidity. The findings make a compelling argument for the necessity of adequate rehabilitation programs delivered at crucial times in breast cancer survivors' recovery. The study's unexpected finding that geographical location is a highly significant predictor of changes in productivity among breast cancer survivors is interpreted as a factor of the regulatory framework governing employment relationships in the four different jurisdictions.

Background: The objective was to compare women's personal estimates of their risk with objective breast cancer risk estimates and to describe the risk factors for breast cancer identified by women.Methods: Telephone survey of a random sample of 761 rural and urban women with no history of breast cancer. Survey instrument included measures of perceptions of lifetime risk for breast cancer for themselves and for the average woman, perceptions of risk factors that influenced their risk and the average woman's risk for breast cancer. Objective estimates of breast cancer risk were calculated using the Gail et al. algorithm. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were used to analyze the data.Results: Women's estimates of their own lifetime risk for breast cancer were significantly higher than their Gail model risk estimates (mean difference = 19%, p<0.001). The women's personal breast cancer risk estimates were lower than estimates of risk for a hypothetical average woman (mean difference = -8%, p<0.001). Fifty percent of the sample reported a perceived risk estimate at least 15% above their Gail risk estimate. The risk factors for breast cancer most frequently identified included family history, nutrition/diet, smoking, lifestyle, environment, stress and age. Although the risk factors used to calculate the Gail model risk estimates were reported by some study participants, these women consistently identified only family history as their personal risk factor.Conclusion: Women have difficulty accurately estimating their breast cancer risk and identifying known risk factors for breast cancer. Individual risk information may be more useful in enhancing accurate risk perceptions than the "1 in 9" message.