Kailey E Roberts1, Greta Jankauskaite2, Elizabeth Slivjak3, Lisa Rubin4, Sherry Schachter5, Stacy Stabler6, Lori Wiener7, Holly G Prigerson8, Wendy G Lichtenthal9,10. 1. Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, Bronx, New York, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 4. Department of Clinical Psychology, The New School for Social Research, New York, New York, USA. 5. Bereavement Services, Calvary Hospital, New York, New York, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 7. National Cancer Institute, Pediatric Oncology Branch, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 8. Cornell Center for Research on End-of-life Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 9. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 10. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study sought to obtain feedback from stakeholder cancer caregivers and bereaved family members on the implementation of bereavement risk screening in oncology. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 family members of patients with advanced cancer (n = 12) and bereaved family members (n = 26) on when and how to effectively implement bereavement risk screening. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Many participants indicated that they would be open to completing a self-report screening measure before and after the patient's death. Several suggested screening at multiple timepoints and the importance of follow-up. Participants viewed screening as an opportunity to connect to psychosocial support. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that family members appear supportive of sensitively approached bereavement risk screening before and after a patient's death as an important component of quality psychosocial care. To optimize implementation, bereavement risk screening would involve screening at multiple timepoints and include follow-up. Findings suggest standardized risk screening using a brief, validated self-report tool would be a pragmatic approach to increasing access to bereavement care.
OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study sought to obtain feedback from stakeholder cancer caregivers and bereaved family members on the implementation of bereavement risk screening in oncology. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 family members of patients with advanced cancer (n = 12) and bereaved family members (n = 26) on when and how to effectively implement bereavement risk screening. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Many participants indicated that they would be open to completing a self-report screening measure before and after the patient's death. Several suggested screening at multiple timepoints and the importance of follow-up. Participants viewed screening as an opportunity to connect to psychosocial support. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that family members appear supportive of sensitively approached bereavement risk screening before and after a patient's death as an important component of quality psychosocial care. To optimize implementation, bereavement risk screening would involve screening at multiple timepoints and include follow-up. Findings suggest standardized risk screening using a brief, validated self-report tool would be a pragmatic approach to increasing access to bereavement care.
Authors: Wendy G Lichtenthal; Geoffrey W Corner; Corinne R Sweeney; Lori Wiener; Kailey E Roberts; Raymond E Baser; Yuelin Li; William Breitbart; David W Kissane; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Holly G Prigerson; Martin Viola; Chris R Brewin; Christopher Cox; Daniel Ouyang; Madeline Rogers; Cynthia X Pan; Shayna Rabin; Jiehui Xu; Susan Vaughan; Janna S Gordon-Elliot; David Berlin; Lindsay Lief; Wendy G Lichtenthal Journal: Trials Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 2.279