60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding why cancer patients accept or turn down psycho-oncological support: a prospective observational study including patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives on communication about distress

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          International standards prioritize introducing routine emotional distress screening in cancer care to accurately identify patients who most need psycho-oncological treatment, and ensure that patients can access appropriate supportive care. However, only a moderate proportion of distressed patients accepts referrals to or uses psycho-oncological support services. Predictors and barriers to psycho-oncological support service utilization are under-studied. We know little about how patients and oncologists perceive the discussions when oncologists assess psychosocial distress with a screening instrument.

          We aim to 1) assess the barriers and predictors of uptake of in-house psycho-oncological support along the distress screening pathway in cancer patients treated at a University Oncology Outpatient Clinic and, 2) determine how patients and clinicians perceive communication about psychosocial distress after screening with the Distress Thermometer.

          Methods

          This is a quantitative prospective observational study with qualitative aspects. We will examine medical and demographic variables, cancer patient self-reports of various psychological measures, and aspects of the patient-clinician communication as variables that potentially predict uptake of psycho-oncological support service. We will also assess the patients’ reasons for accepting or refusing psycho-oncological support services. We assess at three points in time, based on paper-and-pencil questionnaires and two patient interviews during the study period. We will monitor outcomes (psycho-oncology service uptake) four months after study entry.

          Discussion

          The study will improve our understanding of characteristics of patients who accept or refuse psycho-oncological support, and help us understand how patients’ and oncologists perceive communication about psychosocial distress, and referral to a psycho-oncologist. We believe this is the first study to focus on factors that affect uptake or rejection of psycho-oncological support services along the screening and referral pathway. The study 1) combines standard assessment with qualitative data collection, 2) embraces patient and oncologist perspectives, and, 3) focuses on patient-clinician communication about psychosocial issues raised by a standard screening instrument.

          Our results may improve routine practices and eliminate barriers to adequate health care, and make it easier to recognize patients with high distress levels who underuse the service.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pooled results from 38 analyses of the accuracy of distress thermometer and other ultra-short methods of detecting cancer-related mood disorders.

          Ultra-short screening tools involving fewer than five questions have been recommended as a simple method of detecting distress, anxiety, or depression in cancer settings. Such methods have practical appeal, but their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. A literature search limited to diagnostic validity studies of ultra-short screening in cancer settings identified 38 analyses, including 19 assessing the Distress Thermometer alone, involving a total of 6,414 unique patients. The pooled ability of ultra-short methods to detect depression was given by a sensitivity of 78.4%, a specificity of 66.8%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 34.2%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.4%. Thus these tools were very good at excluding possible cases of depression but poor at confirming a suspected diagnosis. The pooled ability of ultra-short methods to detect anxiety was given by a sensitivity of 77.3% and a specificity of 56.6% (PPV, 55.2%; NPV, 80.25%) and for distress a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 66.5% (PPV, 59.7%; NPV, of 82.8%). Results using the Distress Thermometer alone were similar. Scores of integrated accuracy, using the Youden index and diagnostic odds ratio, suggested modest overall accuracy with least success in diagnosing anxiety disorders. Ultra-short methods were modestly effective in screening for mood disorders. Their rule-in ability was poorer than their rule-out ability. Ultra-short methods cannot be used alone to diagnose depression, anxiety, or distress in cancer patients but they may be considered as a first-stage screen to rule out cases of depression.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient and health professional's perceived barriers to the delivery of psychosocial care to adults with cancer: a systematic review.

            To explore the barriers experienced and perceived by health professionals and patients in the delivery of psychosocial care to adults with cancer. Systematic searches were undertaken using the PsychInfo, Medline and CINAHL electronic databases, up to October 2013. Research reporting health professional or patient experiences and perceptions of barriers to psychosocial care are included in the review. The systematic review includes studies that have non-experimental, exploratory and observational designs, as is appropriate to answer the review question. Included studies were critically appraised. The results of individual quantitative studies were aggregated. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the qualitative results. Twenty-five papers met the pre-specified inclusion criteria for the final review. The most commonly perceived barrier for patients relates to receiving adequate support from elsewhere and a lack of perceived need for psychosocial care. Health professionals report barriers at an organisational level most frequently followed by cultural and then individual clinician-related barriers. Barriers exist on a variety of levels. People with cancer need clear appropriate information and communication about psychosocial services, including information about the role of psychosocial care in addition to existing supports. Interventions that target the complex interplay of individual, organisational and cultural factors need to be developed. Strategies that improve health professional communication skills, identify clear referral pathways, improve acceptability of interventions and clearly identify the need for services could address many of the barriers identified in this review. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              [Fear of progression in breast cancer patients--validation of the short form of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire (FoP-Q-SF)].

              Fear of progression is one of the most prevalent symptoms in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate the 12-item short version of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire (FoP-Q-SF). A total of 1083 breast cancer patients were recruited by the Hamburg Cancer Register to fill out various questionnaires (response rate 67 %). Estimates of reliability were high (Cronbach's alpha = .87). The original one-factor structure was replicated. We used the HADS, the PCL-C, and the SF-8, among others, to validate the FoP-Q-SF. Significant positive correlations were found for fear of progression, anxiety and intrusion (r > .60) as well as for avoidance, hyperarousal and depression (r > or = .49). Moderate to high (negative) correlations were observed with health-related quality of life, in particular with the mental health dimensions (r > or = .48). Patients with cancer recurrence reported significant higher levels of fear of progression (p < .001). The short form of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire appears to be a reliable and valid instrument which can be recommended for further use in research and clinical care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +41(0)612655294 , +41(0)612565740 , diana.zwahlen@usb.ch
                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2407
                30 May 2017
                30 May 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 385
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.410567.1, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, , University Hospital Basel, ; Hebelstrasse 2, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
                [2 ]GRID grid.410567.1, Medical Oncology Department, , University Hospital Basel, ; Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
                [3 ]GRID grid.410567.1, , Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, ; Basel, Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6300-3899
                Article
                3362
                10.1186/s12885-017-3362-x
                5450069
                28558713
                4a9aaab0-b83c-40dc-afe2-b8fec3e73575
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 27 January 2017
                : 16 May 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Cancer League Switzerland
                Award ID: KLS 3186-02-2013
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content179

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors209