Rachel Funk1,2, Cassidy Cisneros3,4, Rush C Williams5,4, Jeffrey Kendall4, Heidi A Hamann4,6. 1. Oklahoma City VA Medical Center, 921 NE 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK, 73104, USA. rachelfunkphd@gmail.com. 2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. rachelfunkphd@gmail.com. 3. Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 5. Washington DC VA Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. 6. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While distress screening is important for identifying unmet needs of cancer patients, less is known about referral and uptake of supportive care services among distressed patients. The current analysis examined screen-based rates of referral to supportive care and explored demographic and clinical correlates of referral uptake. METHODS: We tracked distress screens completed by a varied group of cancer patients receiving outpatient care at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center during a 1-month period. Electronic medical record review was used to examine the rates of supportive care referral and uptake among distressed patients. RESULTS: Out of 644 unique screens, 195 (30 %) patients reported significant distress; distressed patients were more likely to be non-white (odds ratio (OR) = 1.71, p < 0.01), prescribed psychiatric medication (OR = 1.92, p < 0.00), and have no previous contact with the cancer center's supportive care staff (OR = 1.62, p = 0.01). Thirty-four of these patients pre-emptively declined supportive care contact; thus, 161 were referred for supportive care. Among the 99 patients who received initial assessments by a team member, only 19 (19 %) requested and completed at least one follow-up appointment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this analysis support earlier work demonstrating significant supportive care needs in cancer patients. However, it challenges the assumption that screening will result in increased uptake of supportive care services beyond initial assessment. Further work should focus on facilitating engagement and reducing barriers for patients with continuing post-assessment supportive care needs.
PURPOSE: While distress screening is important for identifying unmet needs of cancerpatients, less is known about referral and uptake of supportive care services among distressed patients. The current analysis examined screen-based rates of referral to supportive care and explored demographic and clinical correlates of referral uptake. METHODS: We tracked distress screens completed by a varied group of cancerpatients receiving outpatient care at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center during a 1-month period. Electronic medical record review was used to examine the rates of supportive care referral and uptake among distressed patients. RESULTS: Out of 644 unique screens, 195 (30 %) patients reported significant distress; distressed patients were more likely to be non-white (odds ratio (OR) = 1.71, p < 0.01), prescribed psychiatric medication (OR = 1.92, p < 0.00), and have no previous contact with the cancer center's supportive care staff (OR = 1.62, p = 0.01). Thirty-four of these patients pre-emptively declined supportive care contact; thus, 161 were referred for supportive care. Among the 99 patients who received initial assessments by a team member, only 19 (19 %) requested and completed at least one follow-up appointment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this analysis support earlier work demonstrating significant supportive care needs in cancerpatients. However, it challenges the assumption that screening will result in increased uptake of supportive care services beyond initial assessment. Further work should focus on facilitating engagement and reducing barriers for patients with continuing post-assessment supportive care needs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Distress screening; Psychooncology; Supportive care
Authors: Gabriella Morasso; Silvia Di Leo; Anita Caruso; Andrea Decensi; Monica Beccaro; Laura Berretta; Laura Bongiorno; Maurizio Cosimelli; Stefania Finelli; Gabriella Rondanina; Wissya Santoni; Vittoria Stigliano; Massimo Costantini Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; Kristine A Donovan; Peter C Trask; Stewart B Fleishman; James Zabora; Frank Baker; Jimmie C Holland Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William F Pirl; Anna Muriel; Vivian Hwang; Alice Kornblith; Joseph Greer; Karen Donelan; Donna B Greenberg; Jennifer Temel; Lidia Schapira Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec
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: Joanna E Bulkley; Carmit K McMullen; Marcia Grant; Christopher Wendel; Mark C Hornbrook; Robert S Krouse Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rebecca Selove; Maya Foster; Debra Wujcik; Maureen Sanderson; Pamela C Hull; David Shen-Miller; Steven Wolff; Debra Friedman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Daniel C McFarland; Rebecca M Saracino; Andrew H Miller; William Breitbart; Barry Rosenfeld; Christian Nelson Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.404
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