PURPOSE: Distress has been recognized as the sixth vital sign in cancer care and several guidelines recommend routine screening. Despite this, screening for distress is rarely conducted and infrequently evaluated. METHODS: A program of routine online screening for distress was implemented for new patients with breast and lung cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) minimal screening: the distress thermometer (DT) only plus usual care; (2) full screening: DT, problem checklist, Psychological Screen for Cancer part C measuring anxiety and depression, a personalized report summarizing concerns and the report on the medical file; or (3) triage: full screening plus optional personalized phone triage with referral to resources. Patients in all conditions received an information packet and were reassessed 3 months later with the full screening battery. RESULTS:Five hundred eighty-five patients with breast cancer and 549 patients with lung cancer were assessed at baseline (89% of all patients), and 75.5% retained for follow-up. High prevalence of baseline distress was found across patients. Twenty percent fewer patients with lung cancer in triage continued to have high distress at follow-up compared to those in the other two groups, and patients with breast cancer in the full screening and triage conditions showed lower distress at follow-up than those in minimal screening. The best predictor of decreased anxiety and depression in full screening and triage conditions was receiving a referral to psychosocial services. CONCLUSION:Routine online screening is feasible in a large cancer center and may help to reduce future distress levels, particularly when coupled with uptake of appropriate resources.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Distress has been recognized as the sixth vital sign in cancer care and several guidelines recommend routine screening. Despite this, screening for distress is rarely conducted and infrequently evaluated. METHODS: A program of routine online screening for distress was implemented for new patients with breast and lung cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) minimal screening: the distress thermometer (DT) only plus usual care; (2) full screening: DT, problem checklist, Psychological Screen for Cancer part C measuring anxiety and depression, a personalized report summarizing concerns and the report on the medical file; or (3) triage: full screening plus optional personalized phone triage with referral to resources. Patients in all conditions received an information packet and were reassessed 3 months later with the full screening battery. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-five patients with breast cancer and 549 patients with lung cancer were assessed at baseline (89% of all patients), and 75.5% retained for follow-up. High prevalence of baseline distress was found across patients. Twenty percent fewer patients with lung cancer in triage continued to have high distress at follow-up compared to those in the other two groups, and patients with breast cancer in the full screening and triage conditions showed lower distress at follow-up than those in minimal screening. The best predictor of decreased anxiety and depression in full screening and triage conditions was receiving a referral to psychosocial services. CONCLUSION: Routine online screening is feasible in a large cancer center and may help to reduce future distress levels, particularly when coupled with uptake of appropriate resources.
Authors: Mark Lazenby; Elizabeth Ercolano; Hui Tan; Leah Ferrucci; Terry Badger; Marcia Grant; Paul Jacobsen; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Joanne M Shaw; Melanie A Price; Josephine M Clayton; Peter Grimison; Tim Shaw; Nicole Rankin; Phyllis N Butow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sue V Petzel; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Julie Cragg; Molly McClellan; Daniel Chan; Julie A Jacko; François Sainfort; Melissa A Geller Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Ai Kubo; Andrea Altschuler; Elaine Kurtovich; Sarah Hendlish; Cecile A Laurent; Tatjana Kolevska; Yan Li; Andrew Avins Journal: Mindfulness (N Y) Date: 2018-03-24
Authors: Dina M Randazzo; Frances McSherry; James E Herndon; Mary Lou Affronti; Eric S Lipp; Charlene Flahiff; Elizabeth Miller; Sarah Woodring; Maria Freeman; Patrick Healy; Janet Minchew; Susan Boulton; Annick Desjardins; Gordana Vlahovic; Henry S Friedman; Stephen Keir; Katherine B Peters Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Melissa F Miller; C Daniel Mullins; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Mitch Golant; Joanne S Buzaglo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147