National study reveals unmet cognitive needs in brain tumour patients, suggesting improvements in care pathways.
Abstract Purpose Despite the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in brain tumour survivors, supportive care primarily remains focused on physical/psychosocial health. Little is known about the cognitive screening/interventions available to brain tumour survivors in routine care. Further, national optimum-care pathways omit recommendations for low-grade tumour diagnoses. We therefore aimed to explore the reported cognitive needs of brain tumour patients and current practice of cognitive screening/intervention. Methods Two semi-structured focus groups (n=3 in each) and individual interviews (n=4) were conducted online with 10 brain cancer care co-ordinators (BCCCs) throughout Australia, then audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically, and data interpretation was structured by an interpretivist design. Results The lack of a standardised model of cognitive care for BCCCs to follow was an overarching meta-theme. Alongside this, all themes varied notably depending on tumour grade. While unmet cognitive needs were reported across both high- and low-grade tumour survivors, the type of support available, accessed, or sought, reportedly varied. Three key themes illustrated these differences: cognitive support accessibility and involvement is shaped by tumour grade; involvement of and impact on caregivers differs depending on tumour grade; and help-seeking for cognition varies by tumour grade. Conclusions Our results highlight the need for, and limited availability of, standardised cognitive care following a brain tumour diagnosis. Cognitive screening and intervention were identified as continuing areas of unmet need for both high- and/or low-grade brain tumour survivors. Optimum care pathways could be improved by including standard recommendations for cognitive screening and management for all brain tumour survivors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Virtue-Griffiths et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: