Rachel Brebach1, Louise Sharpe1, Daniel S J Costa1, Paul Rhodes1, Phyllis Butow1,2,3. 1. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. PoCoG & CeMPED, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. SoURCe, Institute of Surgery, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although cancer care guidelines recommend screening for distress among cancer patients and offering psychological support when indicated, many patients decline offers of such support. This study aimed to quantify uptake and adherence to psychological support and to identify predictors of each. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, PsychInfo and Scopus to identify studies reporting uptake or adherence rates for individual psychological interventions targeting distress, anxiety or depression for cancer patients or survivors. RESULTS: Across the 53 included studies reporting uptake and/or adherence rates for 12 323 cancer patients, the uptake and adherence rates were 60.1% and 90.4%, respectively. Patients screened and identified as distressed were less likely to accept intervention than unselected patients (50.3% compared with 66.3%, Q(1) = 4.66, P = 0.031). Uptake of therapy was higher for interventions delivered by telephone rather than face-to-face (71.2% compared with 53.8%, Q(1) = 4.91, P = 0.027) and when therapy was offered prior to medical treatment compared with later (72.9% compared with 56.8%, Q(1) = 5.60, P = 0.018). Patients were more likely to accept intervention from nurses than other allied health professionals (68.3% compared with 50.5%, Q(1) = 5.76, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Patients appeared more receptive to interventions offered near diagnosis, over the telephone and by nurses. Although this suggests higher acceptability of such interventions, evidence of their greater efficacy is lacking, and this merits further investigation. Research is needed to understand barriers to acceptance of psychological support, particularly because uptake rates were lower for distressed patients.
OBJECTIVE: Although cancer care guidelines recommend screening for distress among cancerpatients and offering psychological support when indicated, many patients decline offers of such support. This study aimed to quantify uptake and adherence to psychological support and to identify predictors of each. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, PsychInfo and Scopus to identify studies reporting uptake or adherence rates for individual psychological interventions targeting distress, anxiety or depression for cancerpatients or survivors. RESULTS: Across the 53 included studies reporting uptake and/or adherence rates for 12 323 cancerpatients, the uptake and adherence rates were 60.1% and 90.4%, respectively. Patients screened and identified as distressed were less likely to accept intervention than unselected patients (50.3% compared with 66.3%, Q(1) = 4.66, P = 0.031). Uptake of therapy was higher for interventions delivered by telephone rather than face-to-face (71.2% compared with 53.8%, Q(1) = 4.91, P = 0.027) and when therapy was offered prior to medical treatment compared with later (72.9% compared with 56.8%, Q(1) = 5.60, P = 0.018). Patients were more likely to accept intervention from nurses than other allied health professionals (68.3% compared with 50.5%, Q(1) = 5.76, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS:Patients appeared more receptive to interventions offered near diagnosis, over the telephone and by nurses. Although this suggests higher acceptability of such interventions, evidence of their greater efficacy is lacking, and this merits further investigation. Research is needed to understand barriers to acceptance of psychological support, particularly because uptake rates were lower for distressed patients.
Authors: Allan 'Ben' Smith; Louise Sharpe; Belinda Thewes; Jane Turner; Jemma Gilchrist; Joanna E Fardell; Afaf Girgis; Stephanie Tesson; Joseph Descallar; Melanie L Bell; Jane Beith; Phyllis Butow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lisa Beatty; Emma Kemp; Claire Binnion; Jane Turner; Donna Milne; Phyllis Butow; Sylvie Lambert; Patsy Yates; Desmond Yip; Bogda Koczwara Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Louise Sharpe; J Turner; J E Fardell; B Thewes; A B Smith; J Gilchrist; J Beith; A Girgis; S Tesson; S Day; K Grunewald; P Butow Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Kelly M Trevino; Charlotte Healy; Peter Martin; Beverly Canin; Karl Pillemer; Jo Anne Sirey; M Cary Reid Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Angela Mifsud; Melissa J Pehlivan; Paul Fam; Maddison O'Grady; Annamiek van Steensel; Elisabeth Elder; Jenny Gilchrist; Kerry A Sherman Journal: Health Psychol Behav Med Date: 2021-05-21