OBJECTIVES: We set out to create a psychosocial oncology care framework and a set of relevant recommendations that can be used to improve the quality of comprehensive cancer care for Ontario patients and their families.meet the psychosocial health care needs of cancer patients and their families at both the provider and system levels. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: The adapte process and the practice guideline development cycle were used to adapt the 10 recommendations from the 2008 U.S. Institute of Medicine standard Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs into the psychosocial oncology care framework. In addition, the evidence contained in the original document was used, in combination with the expertise of the working group, to create a set of actionable recommendations. Refinement after formal external review was conducted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The new framework consists of 8 defining domains. Of those 8 domains, 7 were adapted from recommendations in the source document; 1 new domain, to raise awareness about the need for psychosocial support of cancer patients and their families, was added. To ensure high-quality psychosocial care and services, 31 actionable recommendations were created. The document was submitted to an external review process. More than 70% of practitioners rated the quality of the advice document as high and reported that they would recommend its use. CONCLUSIONS: This advice document advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care in response to the distress experienced by cancer patients and their families. The recommendations will be useful in future to measure performance, quality of practice, and access to psychosocial services.
OBJECTIVES: We set out to create a psychosocial oncology care framework and a set of relevant recommendations that can be used to improve the quality of comprehensive cancer care for Ontario patients and their families.meet the psychosocial health care needs of cancerpatients and their families at both the provider and system levels. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: The adapte process and the practice guideline development cycle were used to adapt the 10 recommendations from the 2008 U.S. Institute of Medicine standard Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs into the psychosocial oncology care framework. In addition, the evidence contained in the original document was used, in combination with the expertise of the working group, to create a set of actionable recommendations. Refinement after formal external review was conducted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The new framework consists of 8 defining domains. Of those 8 domains, 7 were adapted from recommendations in the source document; 1 new domain, to raise awareness about the need for psychosocial support of cancerpatients and their families, was added. To ensure high-quality psychosocial care and services, 31 actionable recommendations were created. The document was submitted to an external review process. More than 70% of practitioners rated the quality of the advice document as high and reported that they would recommend its use. CONCLUSIONS: This advice document advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care in response to the distress experienced by cancerpatients and their families. The recommendations will be useful in future to measure performance, quality of practice, and access to psychosocial services.
Authors: Peter Briss; Barbara Rimer; Barbara Reilley; Ralph C Coates; Nancy C Lee; Patricia Mullen; Phaedra Corso; Angela B Hutchinson; Robert Hiatt; Jon Kerner; Prethibha George; Cornelia White; Nisha Gandhi; Mona Saraiya; Rosalind Breslow; George Isham; Steven M Teutsch; Alan R Hinman; Robert Lawrence Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: G P Browman; M N Levine; E A Mohide; R S Hayward; K I Pritchard; A Gafni; A Laupacis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Hai-Rim Shin; Freddie Bray; David Forman; Colin Mathers; Donald Maxwell Parkin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Doug Coyle; Timothy Whelan; Jennifer Clinch; Leonard Reyno; Craig C Earle; Andrew Willan; Raymond Viola; Marjorie Coristine; Teresa Janz; Robert Glossop Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-06-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sophie Lauzier; Elizabeth Maunsell; Mélanie Drolet; Douglas Coyle; Nicole Hébert-Croteau; Jacques Brisson; Benoît Mâsse; Belkacem Abdous; André Robidoux; Jean Robert Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J Y Y Kwan; J Croke; T Panzarella; K Ubhi; A Fyles; A Koch; R Dinniwell; W Levin; D McCready; C Chung; F Liu; J L Bender Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: V Tsianakas; G Robert; A Richardson; R Verity; C Oakley; T Murrells; M Flynn; E Ream Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Junetae Kim; Sanghee Lim; Yul Ha Min; Yong-Wook Shin; Byungtae Lee; Guiyun Sohn; Kyung Hae Jung; Jae-Ho Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sei Hyun Ahn; Soo-Yong Shin; Jong Won Lee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lindy P J Arts; Simone Oerlemans; Lidwine Tick; Ad Koster; Henk T J Roerdink; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claudia S E W Schuurhuizen; Annemarie M J Braamse; Inge R H M Konings; Henk M W Verheul; Joost Dekker Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.430