Literature DB >> 14581094

Cancer distress screening. Needs, models, and methods.

Linda E Carlson1, Barry D Bultz.   

Abstract

The idea of screening for distress in oncology populations is not new. Many recommendations have been made regarding the need for routine screening, and methods have been suggested for accomplishing this. However, a synthesis of this body of research is not readily available. This paper summarizes the literature documenting the levels of distress commonly found in cancer patients, followed by discussion of recommended standards for routine distress screening, and a summary of various programs that have attempted to establish clinical screening programs. The computerized quality of life (QL) screening literature is also briefly reviewed as potentially instructive. This review is followed by a theoretical and psychometric assessment of the various screening instruments and screening models that have been suggested in the literature or used clinically and a brief assessment of possible economic costs of psychosocial screening, ending with concrete suggestions for methods and models that could be widely adopted by psychosocial oncology programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14581094     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3999(03)00514-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psychosom Res        ISSN: 0022-3999            Impact factor:   3.006


  91 in total

1.  Distress-the 6th vital sign.

Authors:  D Howell; K Olsen
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Using Rasch analysis to examine the distress thermometer's cut-off scores among a mixed group of patients with cancer.

Authors:  Sylvie D Lambert; Julie F Pallant; Kerrie Clover; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Gregory Carter
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Facilitating the implementation of empirically valid interventions in psychosocial oncology and supportive care.

Authors:  Thomas F Hack; Linda Carlson; Lorna Butler; Lesley F Degner; Fabijana Jakulj; Tom Pickles; J Dean Ruether; Lorna Weir
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Effects of High Anxiety Scores on Surgical and Overall Treatment Plan in Patients with Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Authors:  Nathalie LeVasseur; Huaqi Li; Winson Cheung; Paula Myers; Elaine Mckevitt; Rebecca Warburton; Kaylie-Anne Willemsma; Adam Deruchie Tan; Stephen Chia; Christine Simmons
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-10-15

5.  Evaluating patients for psychosocial distress and supportive care needs based on health-related quality of life in primary brain tumors: a prospective multicenter analysis of patients with gliomas in an outpatient setting.

Authors:  Anne-Katrin Hickmann; Marlene Hechtner; Minou Nadji-Ohl; Mareile Janko; Ann Katrin Reuter; Karoline Kohlmann; Markus Haug; Sonja Grüninger; Monika Deininger; Oliver Ganslandt; Jochem König; Christian Rainer Wirtz; Jan Coburger; Mirjam Renovanz
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Depressive symptom patterns and their consequences for diagnosis of affective disorders in cancer patients.

Authors:  Katrin Reuter; Simone Raugust; Jürgen Bengel; Martin Härter
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2004-10-09       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  IT-based Psychosocial Distress Screening in Patients with Sarcoma and Parental Caregivers via Disease-specific Online Social Media Communities.

Authors:  Florian Pohlig; Ulrich Lenze; Heinrich M L Muhlhofer; Florian W Lenze; Johannes Schauwecker; Carolin Knebel; Tanja Zimmermann; Peter Herschbach
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2017 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

8.  Distress persists in long-term brain tumor survivors with glioblastoma multiforme.

Authors:  Stephen T Keir; Margaret M Farland; Eric S Lipp; Henry S Friedman
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 4.442

Review 9.  Capturing and Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes into Clinical Trials: Practical Considerations for Clinicians.

Authors:  Juliana Perez Botero; Gita Thanarajasingam; Rahma Warsame
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.075

10.  Factor analytic and item response theory evaluation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in women with cancer.

Authors:  Salene M Wu; Tammy A Schuler; Michael C Edwards; Hae-Chung Yang; Brittany M Brothers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.