CONTEXT: The delineation of populations of cancer patients with complex symptoms can inform the planning and delivery of supportive care services. OBJECTIVES: We explored the physical, psychosocial, and practical concerns experienced by patients attending an ambulatory oncology symptom control clinic. METHODS: Patients attending a Pain Clinic at a large tertiary cancer centre were invited to complete screening measures assessing distress, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and practical and psychosocial problems. A matched sample of patients who did not attend the Pain Clinic were selected as a comparison group. RESULTS: Of all eligible Pain Clinic patients, 46 (77%) completed the measures; so did 46 comparison group patients. The percentages of patients reporting distress (78.3%), pain (93.5%), and fatigue (93.5%) were higher among Pain Clinic patients than among the comparison patients. A higher percentage of Pain Clinic patients also reported multiple, severe, concurrent symptoms: 87% scored 7 or higher in at least one of the pain, fatigue, or distress scales, and 30.4% of the patients scored 7 or higher on all three. The most common problem areas were feeling a burden to others, trouble talking with friends and family, spirituality, and sleep difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of multiple, concurrent symptoms and psychosocial problems were found in Pain Clinic patients than in a group of patients who did not attend the Pain Clinic. Routine screening and triaging of cancer patients using a comprehensive and standardized panel of questions can facilitate symptom assessment and management, and can inform program planning.
CONTEXT: The delineation of populations of cancerpatients with complex symptoms can inform the planning and delivery of supportive care services. OBJECTIVES: We explored the physical, psychosocial, and practical concerns experienced by patients attending an ambulatory oncology symptom control clinic. METHODS:Patients attending a Pain Clinic at a large tertiary cancer centre were invited to complete screening measures assessing distress, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and practical and psychosocial problems. A matched sample of patients who did not attend the Pain Clinic were selected as a comparison group. RESULTS: Of all eligible Pain Clinic patients, 46 (77%) completed the measures; so did 46 comparison group patients. The percentages of patients reporting distress (78.3%), pain (93.5%), and fatigue (93.5%) were higher among Pain Clinic patients than among the comparison patients. A higher percentage of Pain Clinic patients also reported multiple, severe, concurrent symptoms: 87% scored 7 or higher in at least one of the pain, fatigue, or distress scales, and 30.4% of the patients scored 7 or higher on all three. The most common problem areas were feeling a burden to others, trouble talking with friends and family, spirituality, and sleep difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of multiple, concurrent symptoms and psychosocial problems were found in Pain Clinic patients than in a group of patients who did not attend the Pain Clinic. Routine screening and triaging of cancerpatients using a comprehensive and standardized panel of questions can facilitate symptom assessment and management, and can inform program planning.
Entities:
Keywords:
Screening for distress; common problems; fatigue; neoplasms; oncology; pain
Authors: Jordanka Kirkova; Aynur Aktas; Declan Walsh; Lisa Rybicki; Mellar P Davis Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Kristi D Graves; Susanne M Arnold; Celia L Love; Kenneth L Kirsh; Pamela G Moore; Steven D Passik Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2006-11-03 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Wolfgang Linden; A Andrea Vodermaier; Regina McKenzie; Maria C Barroetavena; Dahyun Yi; Richard Doll Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: L E Carlson; M Angen; J Cullum; E Goodey; J Koopmans; L Lamont; J H MacRae; M Martin; G Pelletier; J Robinson; J S A Simpson; M Speca; L Tillotson; B D Bultz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-06-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: D Liu; Z Yang; T Wang; Z Yang; H Chen; Y Hu; C Hu; L Guo; Q Deng; Y Liu; M Yu; M Shi; N Du; N Guo Journal: Oncogene Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Shari B Goldfarb; Emily Abramsohn; Barbara L Andersen; Shirley R Baron; Jeanne Carter; Maura Dickler; Judith Florendo; Leslie Freeman; Katherine Githens; David Kushner; Jennifer A Makelarski; S Diane Yamada; Stacy Tessler Lindau Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Virginia T LeBaron; Traci M Blonquist; Fangxin Hong; Barbara Halpenny; Donna L Berry Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams; Sabrina Norwood; David Gillanders; Anne Finucane; Juliet Spiller; Jenny Strachan; Sue Millington; Brooke Swash Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2019-08-20