Lucy Biddle1, Sangeetha Paramasivan2, Susan Harris2, Rona Campbell2, James Brennan3, William Hollingworth2. 1. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Lucy.Biddle@bristol.ac.uk. 2. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Clinical Psychology, Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Horfield Road, Bristol, BS2 8ED, United Kingdom; School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Psychosocial needs assessment is recommended for patients undergoing cancer treatment, but trials of effectiveness of assessment tools provide mixed results. This qualitative study aimed to understand how such tools are experienced by patients and clinicians in order to optimise use in the future. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were used in a mixed-methods sequential design following a randomised controlled trial of needs assessment using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL), and explored patients' and clinicians' evaluations of the needs assessment process. RESULTS: Benefits of needs assessment using the DT&PL included the potential to detect hidden distress, allow opportunity for distress to be discussed, and to deliver outcomes to address problems. However, effectiveness and patient willingness to report all forms of distress could be hindered by: clinicians feeling ill-equipped to deal with 'non-physical' distress and patients questioning their appropriateness to do so; time constraints; insufficient support services and referral guidelines; inappropriate timing; and lack of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of a holistic needs assessment cannot be realised without matching time and frequency of administration to the dynamic nature of distress during cancer, and making changes to the context of delivery - for instance, providing protected time, increasing referral options and clinician training. Significant investment is needed to optimise potential benefits for patients.
PURPOSE: Psychosocial needs assessment is recommended for patients undergoing cancer treatment, but trials of effectiveness of assessment tools provide mixed results. This qualitative study aimed to understand how such tools are experienced by patients and clinicians in order to optimise use in the future. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were used in a mixed-methods sequential design following a randomised controlled trial of needs assessment using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL), and explored patients' and clinicians' evaluations of the needs assessment process. RESULTS: Benefits of needs assessment using the DT&PL included the potential to detect hidden distress, allow opportunity for distress to be discussed, and to deliver outcomes to address problems. However, effectiveness and patient willingness to report all forms of distress could be hindered by: clinicians feeling ill-equipped to deal with 'non-physical' distress and patients questioning their appropriateness to do so; time constraints; insufficient support services and referral guidelines; inappropriate timing; and lack of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of a holistic needs assessment cannot be realised without matching time and frequency of administration to the dynamic nature of distress during cancer, and making changes to the context of delivery - for instance, providing protected time, increasing referral options and clinician training. Significant investment is needed to optimise potential benefits for patients.
Authors: Andrea K Knies; Devika R Jutagir; Elizabeth Ercolano; Nicholas Pasacreta; Mark Lazenby; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Bojoura Schouten; Dominiek De Jonckheere; Marc Aerts; Jochen Decaestecker; Daan Walgraeve; Patrick Vankrunkelsven; Johan Hellings Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan Williamson; Thomas F Hack; Munirah Bangee; Valerio Benedetto; Kinta Beaver Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig; Yvonne Tran; Mia Bierbaum; Gaston Arnolda; Geoff P Delaney; Winston Liauw; Robyn L Ward; Ian Olver; David Currow; Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.655