Chiara Acquati1, Karen Kayser2. 1. Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston, 3511 Cullen Blvd, Houston, TX, 77204-4013, USA. cacquati@central.uh.edu. 2. Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study examined prevalence and predictors of psychological distress among cancer patients receiving care at a safety-net institution during the first year of implementation of a distress screening protocol. Differences between screened and unscreened patients were also analyzed. METHODS: Data on 182 breast and lung cancer patients who were treated at a NCI-designated Academic Comprehensive Cancer Center (ACAD) were abstracted from the patients' medical charts for a period of 1 year. RESULTS: Among the patients screened for distress, 66.2% reported a score higher than 4 (the established cut-off for distress) on the Distress Thermometer. Results from multiple regression analysis indicated that younger age, practical, and emotional problems were significant predictors of higher self-reported scores of psychological distress. There were no significant differences on socio-demographic and clinical variables between patients screened and those who were not screened. However, patients who were receiving more than one treatment modality were more likely to be screened. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of psychological distress in this setting was higher than the percentages reported in other similar studies. Furthermore, younger cancer patients and those presenting psychosocial problems were at risk for higher distress, which requires referral to psychosocial providers and the implementation of services able to meet these areas of need.
PURPOSE: The present study examined prevalence and predictors of psychological distress among cancerpatients receiving care at a safety-net institution during the first year of implementation of a distress screening protocol. Differences between screened and unscreened patients were also analyzed. METHODS: Data on 182 breast and lung cancerpatients who were treated at a NCI-designated Academic Comprehensive Cancer Center (ACAD) were abstracted from the patients' medical charts for a period of 1 year. RESULTS: Among the patients screened for distress, 66.2% reported a score higher than 4 (the established cut-off for distress) on the Distress Thermometer. Results from multiple regression analysis indicated that younger age, practical, and emotional problems were significant predictors of higher self-reported scores of psychological distress. There were no significant differences on socio-demographic and clinical variables between patients screened and those who were not screened. However, patients who were receiving more than one treatment modality were more likely to be screened. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of psychological distress in this setting was higher than the percentages reported in other similar studies. Furthermore, younger cancerpatients and those presenting psychosocial problems were at risk for higher distress, which requires referral to psychosocial providers and the implementation of services able to meet these areas of need.
Authors: Tim Luckett; David Goldstein; Phyllis N Butow; Val Gebski; Lynley J Aldridge; Joshua McGrane; Weng Ng; Madeleine T King Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; David Shibata; Erin M Siegel; Ji-Hyun Lee; William J Fulp; Carlos Alemany; Guillermo Abesada-Terk; Richard Brown; Thomas Cartwright; Douglas Faig; George Kim; Richard Levine; Merry-Jennifer Markham; Fred Schreiber; Philip Sharp; Mokenge Malafa Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 3.894
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: L E Carlson; M Angen; J Cullum; E Goodey; J Koopmans; L Lamont; J H MacRae; M Martin; G Pelletier; J Robinson; J S A Simpson; M Speca; L Tillotson; B D Bultz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-06-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kelly M Shaffer; Allison J Applebaum; Katherine N DuHamel; Sheila N Garland; Philip Gehrman; Jun J Mao Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Navneet S Majhail; Elizabeth Murphy; Purushottam Laud; Jaime M Preussler; Ellen M Denzen; Beatrice Abetti; Alexia Adams; RaeAnne Besser; Linda J Burns; Jan Cerny; Rebecca Drexler; Theresa Hahn; Lensa Idossa; Balkrishna Jahagirdar; Naynesh Kamani; Alison Loren; Deborah Mattila; Joseph McGuirk; Heather Moore; Jana Reynolds; Wael Saber; Lizette Salazar; Barry Schatz; Patrick Stiff; John R Wingard; Karen L Syrjala; K Scott Baker Journal: Haematologica Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Robin M Lally; Kevin A Kupzyk; Gina Bellavia; Jennifer Hydeman; Steven Gallo; Vicki S Helgeson; Deborah Erwin; Adam C Mills; Jean K Brown Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Victoria Dax; Maria Ftanou; Ben Tran; Jeremy Lewin; Rebecca Wallace; Zac Seidler; Joshua F Wiley Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.955
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