BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in psychosocial care and evaluating distress in patients with cancer. As of 2015, the Commission on Cancer requires cancer centers to screen patients for distress, but the optimal approach to implementation remains unclear. METHODS: We assessed the feasibility and impact of using distress assessments to frame lay navigator interactions with geriatric patients with cancer who were enrolled in navigation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 5,121 patients enrolled in our lay patient navigation program, 4,520 (88%) completed at least one assessment using a standardized distress tool (DT). Navigators used the tool to structure both formal and informal distress assessments. Of all patients, 24% reported distress scores of 4 or greater and 5.5% reported distress scores of 8 or greater. The most common sources of distress at initial assessment were pain, balance/mobility difficulties, and fatigue. Minority patients reported similar sources of distress as the overall program population, with increased relative distress related to logistical issues, such as transportation and financial/insurance questions. Patients were more likely to ask for help with questions about insurance/financial needs (79%), transportation (76%), and knowledge deficits about diet/nutrition (76%) and diagnosis (66%) when these items contributed to distress. CONCLUSIONS: Lay navigators were able to routinely screen for patient distress at a high degree of penetration using a structured distress assessment.
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in psychosocial care and evaluating distress in patients with cancer. As of 2015, the Commission on Cancer requires cancer centers to screen patients for distress, but the optimal approach to implementation remains unclear. METHODS: We assessed the feasibility and impact of using distress assessments to frame lay navigator interactions with geriatric patients with cancer who were enrolled in navigation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 5,121 patients enrolled in our lay patient navigation program, 4,520 (88%) completed at least one assessment using a standardized distress tool (DT). Navigators used the tool to structure both formal and informal distress assessments. Of all patients, 24% reported distress scores of 4 or greater and 5.5% reported distress scores of 8 or greater. The most common sources of distress at initial assessment were pain, balance/mobility difficulties, and fatigue. Minority patients reported similar sources of distress as the overall program population, with increased relative distress related to logistical issues, such as transportation and financial/insurance questions. Patients were more likely to ask for help with questions about insurance/financial needs (79%), transportation (76%), and knowledge deficits about diet/nutrition (76%) and diagnosis (66%) when these items contributed to distress. CONCLUSIONS: Lay navigators were able to routinely screen for patient distress at a high degree of penetration using a structured distress assessment.
Authors: Mona N Fouad; Edward Partridge; Mark Dignan; Cheryl Holt; Rhoda Johnson; Chris Nagy; Sharina Person; Theresa Wynn; Isabel Scarinci Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nedra Lisovicz; Rhoda E Johnson; John Higginbotham; Jennifer A Downey; Claudia M Hardy; Mona N Fouad; Agnes W Hinton; Edward E Partridge Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mark T Hegel; Caroline P Moore; E Dale Collins; Stephen Kearing; Karen L Gillock; Raine L Riggs; Kate F Clay; Tim A Ahles Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Patricia M Livingston; Melinda J Craike; Victoria M White; Amanda J Hordern; Michael Jefford; Mari A Botti; Carrie Lethborg; John C Oldroyd Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2010-09-06 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Suzanne K Chambers; Leah Zajdlewicz; Danny R Youlden; Jimmie C Holland; Jeff Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang; Soumya J Niranjan; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; Karina I Halilova; Kelly M Kenzik; Kerri S Bevis; Audrey S Wallace; Nedra Lisovicz; Richard A Taylor; Maria Pisu; Edward E Partridge; Thomas W Butler; Linda A Briggs; Elizabeth A Kvale Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Harold D Miller; Andres Azuero; Stephanie B Wheeler; Maria Pisu; Olivia Hull; Rodney P Rocconi; Kelly M Kenzik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; Audrey S Wallace; Karina I Halilova; Kelly M Kenzik; Edward E Partridge; Maria Pisu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Yasemin Evelyn Turkman; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; James Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Richard Taylor; Deborah Ejem; Elizabeth Kvale; Maria Pisu; Marie Bakitas; Gabrielle B Rocque Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Angela M Stover; Casey L Daniel; Andres Azuero; Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang; Stacey A Ingram; Jeffrey A Franks; Nicole E Caston; D' Ambra N Dent; Ethan M Basch; Bradford E Jackson; Doris Howell; Bryan J Weiner; Jennifer Young Pierce Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.908
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: Gabrielle B Rocque; Maria Pisu; Bradford E Jackson; Elizabeth A Kvale; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Michelle Y Martin; Karen Meneses; Yufeng Li; Richard A Taylor; Aras Acemgil; Courtney P Williams; Nedra Lisovicz; Mona Fouad; Kelly M Kenzik; Edward E Partridge Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ronald M Kline; Gabrielle B Rocque; Elizabeth A Rohan; Kris A Blackley; Cynthia A Cantril; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Howard A Burris; Lawrence N Shulman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 3.840