Brad Zebrack1, Karen Kayser2, Lynne Padgett3, Laura Sundstrom4, Chad Jobin4, Krista Nelson5, Iris C Fineberg6. 1. University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. University of Louisville Kent School of Social Work, Louisville, Kentucky. 3. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Curtis Center Program Evaluation Group, University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Providence Cancer Center, Portland, Oregon. 6. School of Social Welfare, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study reports cancer-treating institutions' capacity to deliver comprehensive psychosocial support services. METHODS: Oncology care providers at 60 cancer-treating institutions completed surveys assessing the capacity of their institutions to provide psychosocial care. Capacity was assessed with the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix (CPCM) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Scores represented individuals' perceptions of their cancer program's performance with respect to 10 fundamental elements of psychosocial care. RESULTS: Among 2134 respondents, 62% reported a mid-level capacity for ≥5 of 10 CPCM items. In comparison with other types of cancer programs (eg, NCI-designated, academic, or comprehensive centers), providers at community cancer programs reported a significantly greater capacity with respect to patient-provider communication, psychosocial needs assessment, and continuity in the delivery of psychosocial care over time. Nurses and primary medical providers reported a significantly lower capacity for linking patients and families with needed psychosocial services within their respective cancer programs. They also reported a significantly higher capacity for conducting follow-up, re-evaluations, and adjustments of psychosocial treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer programs are performing moderately well in terms of communicating to patients the importance of psychosocial care, identifying patient psychosocial needs, and referring patients and families to psychosocial services. They are doing less well with respect to the provision of that care over time. Findings suggest that gaps in psychosocial service capacity are a function of patient, provider, and system characteristics. These results may be useful in formulating strategies to enhance psychosocial care delivery. Cancer 2016;122:1937-45.
BACKGROUND: This study reports cancer-treating institutions' capacity to deliver comprehensive psychosocial support services. METHODS: Oncology care providers at 60 cancer-treating institutions completed surveys assessing the capacity of their institutions to provide psychosocial care. Capacity was assessed with the CancerPsychosocial Care Matrix (CPCM) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Scores represented individuals' perceptions of their cancer program's performance with respect to 10 fundamental elements of psychosocial care. RESULTS: Among 2134 respondents, 62% reported a mid-level capacity for ≥5 of 10 CPCM items. In comparison with other types of cancer programs (eg, NCI-designated, academic, or comprehensive centers), providers at community cancer programs reported a significantly greater capacity with respect to patient-provider communication, psychosocial needs assessment, and continuity in the delivery of psychosocial care over time. Nurses and primary medical providers reported a significantly lower capacity for linking patients and families with needed psychosocial services within their respective cancer programs. They also reported a significantly higher capacity for conducting follow-up, re-evaluations, and adjustments of psychosocial treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer programs are performing moderately well in terms of communicating to patients the importance of psychosocial care, identifying patientpsychosocial needs, and referring patients and families to psychosocial services. They are doing less well with respect to the provision of that care over time. Findings suggest that gaps in psychosocial service capacity are a function of patient, provider, and system characteristics. These results may be useful in formulating strategies to enhance psychosocial care delivery. Cancer 2016;122:1937-45.
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: William F Pirl; Joseph A Greer; Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio; Teresa Deshields; Scott Irwin; Karen Fasciano; Lori Wiener; Tiffany Courtnage; Lynne S Padgett; Jesse R Fann Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Mohamed Rahouma; Mohamed Kamel; Ahmed Abouarab; Ihab Eldessouki; Abu Nasar; Sebron Harrison; Benjamin Lee; Eugene Shostak; John Morris; Brendon Stiles; Nasser K Altorki; Jeffrey L Port Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2018-08-16
Authors: Maija Reblin; Yelena P Wu; Justin Pok; Lauren Kane; Howard Colman; Adam L Cohen; Eduardo Mendivil; Echo L Warner; Miriah Meyer; James Agutter Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2017-08-30