Healthcare provider utility ratings of a psychosocial screening summary: from diagnosis to 6 months.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial screening has been proposed as a core standard of care in pediatric oncology. However, there has been limited application of this standard thus far. Understanding healthcare provider (HCP) attitudes towards psychosocial screening is an important element towards furthering implementation initiatives of standard screening practices in pediatric oncology.
OBJECTIVE: To compare HCP perceptions of the utility of a psychosocial risk summary by discipline (oncologist, nurse, social worker), risk level (Universal, Targeted, Clinical) derived from the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), and time (shortly after a child's diagnosis [T1] and 6 months later [T2]).
METHOD: All participating HCPs (oncologists, nurses, social workers) were asked to rate how useful they found the psychosocial risk summary using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The psychosocial risk summary was perceived as equally useful across providers (oncologists, nurses, social workers) and PAT risk levels at T1. At T2, the psychosocial risk summary was perceived as more useful by oncologists and nurses than social workers, and summaries indicating elevated risk were perceived as more useful than those indicating low risk. Overall, healthcare providers reported greater utility of psychosocial risk summary near diagnosis compared with 6 months later, largely driven by lower utility ratings reported by social workers at T2.
CONCLUSION: Understanding perceived utility and factors affecting perceived utility is a key component to designing effective implementation strategies for systematic psychosocial screening. Active engagement of HCPs in the screening process is critical in improving implementation of psychosocial screening throughout pediatric cancer treatment.