PURPOSE: To examine the possible effect of an educational model on distress screening in newly diagnosed cancer patients referred to Psycho-oncology service (POS). METHODS: We examined the differences in distress and problems among newly diagnosed cancer patients referred to POS by cancer care professionals' according to their clinical judgement (2-year period; Study-1) and after an educational intervention on the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List (PL), with referral to those reporting cut-off scores indicative of 'caseness' (DT>4) (1-year period; Study-2). RESULTS: In Study-1, 153 (6.7%) of 2268 new patients were referred and seen by the POS, which submitted each patient to the DT/PL. About one-third of the patients (31%) were not DT-cases (scores < 4) and showed lower levels of emotional and relational problems than those who resulted DT-cases. In Study-2, of all newly diagnosed cancer patients (n = 1107), 583 (52.6%) were administered to the DT/PL by nurses. Two-hundred and eighty-four (52.2%) resulting DT-cases were referred to POS and, of these, 133 (12% of all new patients; 22.81% of those screened; 46.8% of cases) were seen by the POS. There were significant differences in problems between not referred (DT-non-cases) and referred patients (DT-cases). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the observational nature of the study, the conclusions should be drawn with caution. The implementation of the routine use of DT/PL seemed to determine a higher (79% increase) and more accurate referral of patients but the rate of acceptance was not high, confirming that more effort is necessary in implementing optimal psychosocial care in oncology.
PURPOSE: To examine the possible effect of an educational model on distress screening in newly diagnosed cancerpatients referred to Psycho-oncology service (POS). METHODS: We examined the differences in distress and problems among newly diagnosed cancerpatients referred to POS by cancer care professionals' according to their clinical judgement (2-year period; Study-1) and after an educational intervention on the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List (PL), with referral to those reporting cut-off scores indicative of 'caseness' (DT>4) (1-year period; Study-2). RESULTS: In Study-1, 153 (6.7%) of 2268 new patients were referred and seen by the POS, which submitted each patient to the DT/PL. About one-third of the patients (31%) were not DT-cases (scores < 4) and showed lower levels of emotional and relational problems than those who resulted DT-cases. In Study-2, of all newly diagnosed cancerpatients (n = 1107), 583 (52.6%) were administered to the DT/PL by nurses. Two-hundred and eighty-four (52.2%) resulting DT-cases were referred to POS and, of these, 133 (12% of all new patients; 22.81% of those screened; 46.8% of cases) were seen by the POS. There were significant differences in problems between not referred (DT-non-cases) and referred patients (DT-cases). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the observational nature of the study, the conclusions should be drawn with caution. The implementation of the routine use of DT/PL seemed to determine a higher (79% increase) and more accurate referral of patients but the rate of acceptance was not high, confirming that more effort is necessary in implementing optimal psychosocial care in oncology.
Authors: Andrea K Knies; Devika R Jutagir; Elizabeth Ercolano; Nicholas Pasacreta; Mark Lazenby; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Michelle B Riba; Kristine A Donovan; Barbara Andersen; IIana Braun; William S Breitbart; Benjamin W Brewer; Luke O Buchmann; Matthew M Clark; Molly Collins; Cheyenne Corbett; Stewart Fleishman; Sofia Garcia; Donna B Greenberg; Rev George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Chao-Hui Huang; Robin Lally; Sara Martin; Lisa McGuffey; William Mitchell; Laura J Morrison; Megan Pailler; Oxana Palesh; Francine Parnes; Janice P Pazar; Laurel Ralston; Jaroslava Salman; Moreen M Shannon-Dudley; Alan D Valentine; Nicole R McMillian; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
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
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
Authors: Rachel Funk; Cassidy Cisneros; Rush C Williams; Jeffrey Kendall; Heidi A Hamann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 3.603