Literature DB >> 19930195

Does routine psychological screening of newly diagnosed rural cancer patients lead to better patient outcomes? Results of a pilot study.

Belinda Thewes1, Phyllis Butow, Robin Stuart-Harris.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported on the impact of screening on patient outcomes or clinical practice and research describing the implementation of psychosocial screening in rural services is scarce. AIMS: This study investigated the feasibility and utility of a psychological screening program in Australian rural oncology clinics. SUBJECTS &
METHODS: A total of 83 newly diagnosed adult cancer patients, seen at one of three rural outpatient oncology clinics participated in this study.
RESULTS: Nineteen of forty-three (44%) participants in the screening phase scored above cut-off score on the Distress Thermometer (DT), a validated screening tool for distress in cancer patients. The DT had acceptable sensitivity (86%) and specificity (77%) as a screening tool using another validated self-report measure of psychological symptoms, the Psychological Symptoms Subscale of the Somatic and Psychological Health Report Short form, as a'gold standard'. Screening with the DT did not significantly increase the rate of referrals to psychosocial staff of distressed individuals. However, screening with the DT reduced time to referral. The screened group reported significantly greater unmet needs in univariate (P = 0.01) and multivariate analyses (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Psychological screening did not increase rates of referral to psychosocial support staff for patients with psychological morbidity. However, given the methodological limitations of this pilot study, the results should be interpreted with caution. The DT was found to have acceptable sensitivity and specificity to detect likely cases of psychological morbidity. Barriers to implementation of psychological screening in rural clinics and recommendations for future psychological screening programs at outpatient oncology clinics are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19930195     DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2009.01087.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust J Rural Health        ISSN: 1038-5282            Impact factor:   1.662


  18 in total

1.  Indigenous cancer patient and staff attitudes towards unmet needs screening using the SCNAT-IP.

Authors:  G Garvey; B Thewes; V F Y He; E Davis; A Girgis; P C Valery; K Giam; A Hocking; J Jackson; V Jones; D Yip
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  A systematic review of unmet needs of newly diagnosed older cancer patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

Authors:  M T E Puts; A Papoutsis; E Springall; A E Tourangeau
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  The diagnostic role of a short screening tool--the distress thermometer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xuelei Ma; Jing Zhang; Wuning Zhong; Chi Shu; Fengtian Wang; Jianing Wen; Min Zhou; Yaxiong Sang; Yu Jiang; Lei Liu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Examining the introduction of a supportive care screening and referral process for cancer patients: how does practice compare with protocols?

Authors:  Melanie Regan; Eli Ristevski; Rebecca Jones; Sibilah Breen; Allison Hartney
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 5.  Head and Neck Cancer: Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Augusta Silveira; Eurico Monteiro; Teresa Sequeira
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2018-10-01

6.  Cancer-Related Distress: Revisiting the Utility of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer Problem List in Women With Gynecologic Cancers.

Authors:  Patricia I Jewett; Deanna Teoh; Sue Petzel; Heewon Lee; Audrey Messelt; Jeffrey Kendall; Dorothy Hatsukami; Susan A Everson-Rose; Anne H Blaes; Rachel I Vogel
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-02-24

7.  Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process.

Authors:  Eli Ristevski; Melanie Regan; Rebecca Jones; Sibilah Breen; Angela Batson; Matthew R McGrail
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Brief Distress Screening in Clinical Practice: Does it Help to Effectively Allocate Psycho-Oncological Support to Female Cancer Inpatients?

Authors:  Kerstin Hermelink; Henrik Höhn; Stephan Hasmüller; Julia Gallwas; Kristin Härtl; Rachel Würstlein; Janna Köhm
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 9.  Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Anna Meijer; Michelle Roseman; Vanessa C Delisle; Katherine Milette; Brooke Levis; Achyuth Syamchandra; Michael E Stefanek; Donna E Stewart; Peter de Jonge; James C Coyne; Brett D Thombs
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 3.006

10.  Psychosocial service use: a qualitative exploration from the perspective of rural Australian cancer patients.

Authors:  Kate Gunn; Deborah Turnbull; J Lindsay McWha; Matthew Davies; Ian Olver
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.