Sabien Bauwens1, Catherine Baillon, Willem Distelmans, Peter Theuns. 1. Dienst Supportieve en Palliatieve Zorg, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium; Dienst Klinische Psychologie, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluates how patterns of psychosocial referral of patients with elevated distress differ in a 'systematic screening for distress' condition versus a 'usual practice' condition in ambulatory oncology practice. METHODS: The psychosocial referral process in a 2-week usual practice (N=278) condition was compared with a 2-week 'using the Distress Barometer as a screening instrument' (N=304) condition in an outpatient clinic with seven consulting oncologists. RESULTS: Out of all distressed patients in the usual practice condition, only 5.5% of patients detected with distress were actually referred to psychosocial counselling, compared with 69.1% of patients detected with distress in the condition with systematic screening using the Distress Barometer. Only 3.7% of patients detected with distress in the usual practice condition finally accepted this referral, compared with 27.6% of patients detected with distress in the screening condition. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Distress Barometer as a self-report screening instrument prior to oncological consultation optimises detection of elevated distress in patients, and this results in a higher number of performed and accepted referrals, but cannot by itself guarantee actual psychosocial referral or acceptance of referral. There is not only a problem of poor detection of distress in cancer patients but also a need for better decision-making and communication between oncologists and patients about this issue.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates how patterns of psychosocial referral of patients with elevated distress differ in a 'systematic screening for distress' condition versus a 'usual practice' condition in ambulatory oncology practice. METHODS: The psychosocial referral process in a 2-week usual practice (N=278) condition was compared with a 2-week 'using the Distress Barometer as a screening instrument' (N=304) condition in an outpatient clinic with seven consulting oncologists. RESULTS: Out of all distressed patients in the usual practice condition, only 5.5% of patients detected with distress were actually referred to psychosocial counselling, compared with 69.1% of patients detected with distress in the condition with systematic screening using the Distress Barometer. Only 3.7% of patients detected with distress in the usual practice condition finally accepted this referral, compared with 27.6% of patients detected with distress in the screening condition. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Distress Barometer as a self-report screening instrument prior to oncological consultation optimises detection of elevated distress in patients, and this results in a higher number of performed and accepted referrals, but cannot by itself guarantee actual psychosocial referral or acceptance of referral. There is not only a problem of poor detection of distress in cancerpatients but also a need for better decision-making and communication between oncologists and patients about this issue.
Authors: Pam Baker DeGuzman; David L Vogel; Bethany Horton; Veronica Bernacchi; C Allen Cupp; B J Ferrebee Ghamandi; Ivora D Hinton; Christi Sheffield; Mark J Jameson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Bojoura Schouten; Bert Avau; Geertruida Trudy E Bekkering; Patrick Vankrunkelsven; Jeroen Mebis; Johan Hellings; Ann Van Hecke Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-03-26
Authors: Bojoura Schouten; Elke Van Hoof; Patrick Vankrunkelsven; Ward Schrooten; Paul Bulens; Frank Buntinx; Jeroen Mebis; Dominique Vandijck; Irina Cleemput; Johan Hellings Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Kristen McCarter; Ben Britton; Amanda L Baker; Sean A Halpin; Alison K Beck; Gregory Carter; Chris Wratten; Judith Bauer; Erin Forbes; Debbie Booth; Luke Wolfenden Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Myra E van Linde; Annemarie M J Braamse; Emma H Collette; Adriaan W Hoogendoorn; Frank J Snoek; Henk M W Verheul; Joost Dekker Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Bojoura Schouten; Johan Hellings; Elke Van Hoof; Patrick Vankrunkelsven; Paul Bulens; Frank Buntinx; Jeroen Mebis; Dominique Vandijck; Ward Schrooten Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jochen Ernst; Hermann Faller; Uwe Koch; Elmar Brähler; Martin Härter; Holger Schulz; Joachim Weis; Norbert Köhler; Andreas Hinz; Anja Mehnert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 3.240