OBJECTIVE: Many cancer centers struggle to implement standardized distress screening despite the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer 2012 mandate for a distress screening program standard of care by 2015. This paper presents outcomes for the first cohort of participants (n = 36) of a Screening for Psychosocial Distress Program (SPDP), a 2-year training program designed to assist clinicians in implementing routine distress screening as mandated by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Specifically, participants' success with distress screening implementation, institutional barriers and facilitators to implementation, and the role of the SPDP are described. METHOD: This research followed a longitudinal pre- and posttest mixed methods design. An investigator-developed questionnaire collected qualitative (distress screening goals, institutional barriers and facilitators, facilitators associated with participation in the SPDP) and quantitative (level of goal achievement) data at 6, 12, and 24 months of participation in the SPDP. Conventional content analysis was applied to qualitative data. Mixed methods data analysis in Dedoose evaluated (1) types and number of distress screening goals, barriers, and facilitators, and (2) goal achievement at 6, 12, and 24 months of participation.ResultNinety-five percent of distress screening implementation goals were completed after 2 years of participation. Most common institutional barriers to distress screening implementation were "lack of staff," "competing demands," and "staff turn-over." Most common institutional facilitators were "buy-in," "institutional support," and "recognition of participants' expertise." The number of reported facilitators associated with SPDP participation was higher than the number associated with any institutional factor, and increased over time of participation.Significance of resultsParticipating in training programs to implement distress screening may facilitate successful achievement of the Commission on Cancer's distress screening standard, and benefits seem to increase with time of participation. Training programs are needed to promote facilitators and overcome barriers to distress screening.
OBJECTIVE: Many cancer centers struggle to implement standardized distress screening despite the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer 2012 mandate for a distress screening program standard of care by 2015. This paper presents outcomes for the first cohort of participants (n = 36) of a Screening for Psychosocial Distress Program (SPDP), a 2-year training program designed to assist clinicians in implementing routine distress screening as mandated by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Specifically, participants' success with distress screening implementation, institutional barriers and facilitators to implementation, and the role of the SPDP are described. METHOD: This research followed a longitudinal pre- and posttest mixed methods design. An investigator-developed questionnaire collected qualitative (distress screening goals, institutional barriers and facilitators, facilitators associated with participation in the SPDP) and quantitative (level of goal achievement) data at 6, 12, and 24 months of participation in the SPDP. Conventional content analysis was applied to qualitative data. Mixed methods data analysis in Dedoose evaluated (1) types and number of distress screening goals, barriers, and facilitators, and (2) goal achievement at 6, 12, and 24 months of participation.ResultNinety-five percent of distress screening implementation goals were completed after 2 years of participation. Most common institutional barriers to distress screening implementation were "lack of staff," "competing demands," and "staff turn-over." Most common institutional facilitators were "buy-in," "institutional support," and "recognition of participants' expertise." The number of reported facilitators associated with SPDP participation was higher than the number associated with any institutional factor, and increased over time of participation.Significance of resultsParticipating in training programs to implement distress screening may facilitate successful achievement of the Commission on Cancer's distress screening standard, and benefits seem to increase with time of participation. Training programs are needed to promote facilitators and overcome barriers to distress screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
Quality of life; anxiety/depression; cancer; distress screening; interventions
Authors: Jimmie C Holland; Barbara Andersen; William S Breitbart; Luke O Buchmann; Bruce Compas; Teresa L Deshields; Moreen M Dudley; Stewart Fleishman; Caryl D Fulcher; Donna B Greenberg; Carl B Greiner; George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Charles Hoover; Paul B Jacobsen; Elizabeth Kvale; Michael H Levy; Matthew J Loscalzo; Randi McAllister-Black; Karen Y Mechanic; Oxana Palesh; Janice P Pazar; Michelle B Riba; Kristin Roper; Alan D Valentine; Lynne I Wagner; Michael A Zevon; Nicole R McMillian; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Mark Lazenby; Elizabeth Ercolano; Marcia Grant; Jimmie C Holland; Paul B Jacobsen; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Barry D Bultz; Shannon L Groff; Margaret Fitch; Marie Claude Blais; Janice Howes; Karen Levy; Carole Mayer Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Mark Lazenby; Elizabeth Ercolano; Andrea Knies; Nick Pasacreta; Marcia Grant; Jimmie C Holland; Paul B Jacobsen; Terry Badger; Devika R Jutagir; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Clin J Oncol Nurs Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 1.027
Authors: William F Pirl; Anna Muriel; Vivian Hwang; Alice Kornblith; Joseph Greer; Karen Donelan; Donna B Greenberg; Jennifer Temel; Lidia Schapira Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec
Authors: Mark Lazenby; Elizabeth Ercolano; Hui Tan; Leah Ferrucci; Terry Badger; Marcia Grant; Paul Jacobsen; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 2.520
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: Tenbroeck G Smith; Asher E Beckwitt; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Jeuneviette E Bontemps-Jones; Ted A James; Ryan M McCabe; Amanda B Francescatti; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael Kusch; Hildegard Labouvie; Vera Schiewer; Natalie Talalaev; Jan C Cwik; Sonja Bussmann; Lusine Vaganian; Alexander L Gerlach; Antje Dresen; Natalia Cecon; Sandra Salm; Theresia Krieger; Holger Pfaff; Clarissa Lemmen; Lisa Derendorf; Stephanie Stock; Christina Samel; Anna Hagemeier; Martin Hellmich; Bernd Leicher; Gregor Hültenschmidt; Jessica Swoboda; Peter Haas; Anna Arning; Andrea Göttel; Kathrin Schwickerath; Ullrich Graeven; Stefanie Houwaart; Hedy Kerek-Bodden; Steffen Krebs; Christiana Muth; Christina Hecker; Marcel Reiser; Cornelia Mauch; Jennifer Benner; Gerdamarie Schmidt; Christiane Karlowsky; Gisela Vimalanandan; Lukas Matyschik; Lars Galonska; Annette Francke; Karin Osborne; Ursula Nestle; Markus Bäumer; Kordula Schmitz; Jürgen Wolf; Michael Hallek Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Kristine A Donovan; Luigi Grassi; Teresa L Deshields; Cheyenne Corbett; Michelle B Riba Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 6.892