Mary K Morreale1, Tanina F Moore2, Seongho Kim3, Heatherlun S Uphold2, Lorna M Mabunda2, Felicity W K Harper3. 1. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Detroit, MI, United States. Electronic address: mmorreale@med.wayne.edu. 2. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Detroit, MI, United States. 3. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Detroit, MI, United States; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Detroit, MI, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the preferences of patients with metastatic cancer regarding notification of imaging results, as well as distress surrounding the process. METHODS: On imaging day, preferences for notification, expectations of results, health literacy, and social support were measured. After receiving results, patients reported on actual delivery methods. At both times, patients were screened for overall distress, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: The majority of patients preferred notification within 2 days and during a face-to-face visit with their oncologist. Although levels of distress, anxiety, and depression were low, patients with higher anxiety, depression, and social isolation had higher distress. There was no correlation between absolute distress levels and agreement between notification preferences and actual delivery methods. Receiving results from a preferred provider was associated with a decrease in distress from imaging day to follow-up. Face-to-face delivery of results was more important to people with lower health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: While distress regarding the receipt of results was low, it was higher for some groups of patients. Attending to the preferences of these subgroups may help to minimize distress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Receiving results from preferred personnel and diminishing patients' sense of social isolation might provide psychological benefit during the period surrounding imaging.
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the preferences of patients with metastatic cancer regarding notification of imaging results, as well as distress surrounding the process. METHODS: On imaging day, preferences for notification, expectations of results, health literacy, and social support were measured. After receiving results, patients reported on actual delivery methods. At both times, patients were screened for overall distress, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: The majority of patients preferred notification within 2 days and during a face-to-face visit with their oncologist. Although levels of distress, anxiety, and depression were low, patients with higher anxiety, depression, and social isolation had higher distress. There was no correlation between absolute distress levels and agreement between notification preferences and actual delivery methods. Receiving results from a preferred provider was associated with a decrease in distress from imaging day to follow-up. Face-to-face delivery of results was more important to people with lower health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: While distress regarding the receipt of results was low, it was higher for some groups of patients. Attending to the preferences of these subgroups may help to minimize distress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Receiving results from preferred personnel and diminishing patients' sense of social isolation might provide psychological benefit during the period surrounding imaging.
Authors: Kelvin Koay; Penelope Schofield; Karla Gough; Rachelle Buchbinder; Danny Rischin; David Ball; June Corry; Richard H Osborne; Michael Jefford Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C S Carver; C Pozo; S D Harris; V Noriega; M F Scheier; D S Robinson; A S Ketcham; F L Moffat; K C Clark Journal: J Pers Soc Psychol Date: 1993-08
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Claudia S E W Schuurhuizen; Annemarie M J Braamse; Aartjan T F Beekman; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Judith E Bosmans; Pim Cuijpers; Adriaan W Hoogendoorn; Inge R H M Konings; Mecheline H M van der Linden; Elisabeth C W Neefjes; Henk M W Verheul; Joost Dekker Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Kim Tam Bui; Belinda E Kiely; Haryana M Dhillon; Chris Brown; Kay Xu; Mohsen Shafiei; Prunella Blinman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kim Tam Bui; Roger Liang; Belinda E Kiely; Chris Brown; Haryana M Dhillon; Prunella Blinman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 2.692