Errol J Philip1, Thomas V Merluzzi2. 1. a The Notre Dame Lab for Psycho-oncology Research, University of Notre Dame , Notre Dame , IN , USA. 2. b Department of Psychology , University of Notre Dame , Notre Dame , IN , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The ongoing and late effects of cancer treatment can interfere with quality of life and adoption of healthy behaviors, thus potentially impairing recovery and survival. Developing effective methods to identify individuals in need of support is crucial in providing comprehensive, ongoing care and ensuring optimal use of limited resources. The current study provides an examination of long-term survivors' reports of psychosocial issues, their desire for follow-up, and the role of widely used distress-screening measures for identifying survivors who desire help. METHOD: 317 cancer survivors (M age = 62.98 years, female = 70%, Md years since treatment = 7.5 years, mixed diagnoses) completed measures of psychosocial adjustment and quality of life as well as a checklist of psychosocial issues on which they indicated whether they would like to speak with a health professional regarding each issue. RESULTS: Participants reported an average of 1.7 psychosocial issues. Only a minority desired to speak to a health professional; however, those desiring follow-up reported significant impairments in adjustment and quality of life. Though far from adequate as a stand-alone measure, area under the curve and regression analysis suggested a combination of the distress thermometer and number of psychosocial issues may be the best assessment of those desiring follow-up assistance. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that there is a need for a more sophisticated system of assisting survivors that takes into account issues, symptoms, and motivation for help. The present study is important in guiding the development of effective survivorship care and contributing to the growing literature describing the adjustment and care needs of survivors.
PURPOSE: The ongoing and late effects of cancer treatment can interfere with quality of life and adoption of healthy behaviors, thus potentially impairing recovery and survival. Developing effective methods to identify individuals in need of support is crucial in providing comprehensive, ongoing care and ensuring optimal use of limited resources. The current study provides an examination of long-term survivors' reports of psychosocial issues, their desire for follow-up, and the role of widely used distress-screening measures for identifying survivors who desire help. METHOD: 317 cancer survivors (M age = 62.98 years, female = 70%, Md years since treatment = 7.5 years, mixed diagnoses) completed measures of psychosocial adjustment and quality of life as well as a checklist of psychosocial issues on which they indicated whether they would like to speak with a health professional regarding each issue. RESULTS:Participants reported an average of 1.7 psychosocial issues. Only a minority desired to speak to a health professional; however, those desiring follow-up reported significant impairments in adjustment and quality of life. Though far from adequate as a stand-alone measure, area under the curve and regression analysis suggested a combination of the distress thermometer and number of psychosocial issues may be the best assessment of those desiring follow-up assistance. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that there is a need for a more sophisticated system of assisting survivors that takes into account issues, symptoms, and motivation for help. The present study is important in guiding the development of effective survivorship care and contributing to the growing literature describing the adjustment and care needs of survivors.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer survivorship; psychosocial distress; supportive care
Authors: William F Pirl; Jesse R Fann; Joseph A Greer; Ilana Braun; Teresa Deshields; Caryl Fulcher; Elizabeth Harvey; Jimmie Holland; Vicki Kennedy; Mark Lazenby; Lynne Wagner; Meghan Underhill; Deborah K Walker; James Zabora; Bradley Zebrack; Wayne A Bardwell Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kara Franco; Elyse Shuk; Errol Philip; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Patricia A Parker; Matthew Matasar; Steven Horwitz; David Kissane; Smita C Banerjee; Carma L Bylund Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2017-03-30
Authors: Andrea Chirico; Fabio Lucidi; Thomas Merluzzi; Fabio Alivernini; Michelino De Laurentiis; Gerardo Botti; Antonio Giordano Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-05-30