Karen Linehan1, Kate M Fennell2, Donna L Hughes3, Carlene J Wilson4. 1. School of Psychology, Hughes Building, North Terrace, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia. Electronic address: karen.linehan@sa.gov.au. 2. Cancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Road, Eastwood, South Australia 5063, Australia; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, School of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia; Sansom Institute for Health Research, Level 5, Playford Building, City East Campus, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia. Electronic address: kate.fennell@unisa.edu.au. 3. Cancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Road, Eastwood, South Australia 5063, Australia; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, School of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia. Electronic address: donna.hughes@flinders.edu.au. 4. Cancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Road, Eastwood, South Australia 5063, Australia; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, School of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia. Electronic address: carlene.wilson@flinders.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To improve understanding about; (1) the validity of the Distress Thermometer (DT) as a measure of changes in distress after a cancer helpline call, (2) the impact of a helpline call on callers' distress, (3) caller and helpline nurses' comfort with use of the DT, and (4) the extent to which DT scores over the critical threshold, are associated with referral to internal support services for follow-up psychosocial care. METHODS: Callers (people diagnosed with cancer and their family/friends: N = 100) completed a questionnaire that included DT ratings (three time-points), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) and measures of comfort with the DT tool. Nurses recorded referrals to internal services and their comfort in using the DT in each call. RESULTS: The DT correlated with the DASS-21 depression (r = 0.45, p < 0.001), anxiety (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) and stress (r = 0.64, p < 0.001) subscales demonstrating validity. Callers' self-rated distress was significantly lower after the call, regardless of gender or caller type (F(2, 97) = 63.67, p < 0.01, partial eta squared = 0.57). Over 74% of people diagnosed with cancer, 80% family/friends and 89.3% of nurses felt comfortable with DT use. Only 16% of participants were referred on to follow-up internal support services despite 90% of people with cancer and 75% of family/friends' DT scores' suggesting they required follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: The DT is a valid and acceptable tool for use by cancer helplines. Improved documentation of referrals is required to better understand referral patterns.
PURPOSE: To improve understanding about; (1) the validity of the Distress Thermometer (DT) as a measure of changes in distress after a cancer helpline call, (2) the impact of a helpline call on callers' distress, (3) caller and helpline nurses' comfort with use of the DT, and (4) the extent to which DT scores over the critical threshold, are associated with referral to internal support services for follow-up psychosocial care. METHODS: Callers (people diagnosed with cancer and their family/friends: N = 100) completed a questionnaire that included DT ratings (three time-points), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) and measures of comfort with the DT tool. Nurses recorded referrals to internal services and their comfort in using the DT in each call. RESULTS: The DT correlated with the DASS-21 depression (r = 0.45, p < 0.001), anxiety (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) and stress (r = 0.64, p < 0.001) subscales demonstrating validity. Callers' self-rated distress was significantly lower after the call, regardless of gender or caller type (F(2, 97) = 63.67, p < 0.01, partial eta squared = 0.57). Over 74% of people diagnosed with cancer, 80% family/friends and 89.3% of nurses felt comfortable with DT use. Only 16% of participants were referred on to follow-up internal support services despite 90% of people with cancer and 75% of family/friends' DT scores' suggesting they required follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: The DT is a valid and acceptable tool for use by cancer helplines. Improved documentation of referrals is required to better understand referral patterns.
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: Pandora Patterson; Fiona E J McDonald; Kimberley R Allison; Helen Bibby; Michael Osborn; Karen Matthews; Ursula M Sansom-Daly; Kate Thompson; Meg Plaster; Antoinette Anazodo Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Leila Heckel; Kate M Fennell; Liliana Orellana; Anna Boltong; Monica Byrnes; Patricia M Livingston Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kristen McCarter; Melissa A Carlson; Amanda L Baker; Chris L Paul; James Lynam; Lana N Johnston; Elizabeth A Fradgley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Luluh Y Alsughayer; Lamees A Altamimi; Futoon S Alsaleh; Lamya Alsaghan; Ibrahim Alfurayh; Nashwa M Abdel-Aziz; Khalid A Alsaleh; Fahad D Alosaimi Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 1.422