Literature DB >> 34982119

Effect of a Community-Based Medical Oncology Depression Screening Program on Behavioral Health Referrals Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Erin E Hahn1,2, Corrine E Munoz-Plaza1, Dana Pounds1,3, Lindsay Joe Lyons1, Janet S Lee1, Ernest Shen1, Benjamin D Hong1, Shannon La Cava4, Farah M Brasfield5, Lara N Durna6, Karen W Kwan7, David B Beard8, Alexander Ferreira9, Aswini Padmanabhan10, Michael K Gould2.   

Abstract

Importance: Implementation of guideline-recommended depression screening in medical oncology remains challenging. Evidence suggests that multicomponent care pathways with algorithm-based referral and management are effective, yet implementation of sustainable programs remains limited and implementation-science guided approaches are understudied. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation-strategy guided depression screening program for patients with breast cancer in a community setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). The trial included 6 medical centers and 1436 patients diagnosed with new primary breast cancer who had a consultation with medical oncology between October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018. Patients were followed up through study end date of May 31, 2019. Interventions: Six medical centers in Southern California participated and were randomized 1:1 to tailored implementation strategies (intervention, 3 sites, n = 744 patients) or education-only (control, 3 sites, n = 692 patients) groups. The program consisted of screening with the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and algorithm-based scoring and referral to behavioral health services based on low, moderate, or high score. Clinical teams at tailored intervention sites received program education, audit, and feedback of performance data and implementation facilitation, and clinical workflows were adapted to suit local context. Education-only controls sites received program education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was percent of eligible patients screened and referred (based on PHQ-9 score) at intervention vs control groups measured at the patient level. Secondary outcomes included outpatient health care utilization for behavioral health, primary care, oncology, urgent care, and emergency department.
Results: All 1436 eligible patients were randomized at the center level (mean age, 61.5 years; 99% women; 18% Asian, 17% Black, 26% Hispanic, and 37% White) and were followed up to the end of the study, insurance disenrollment, or death. Groups were similar in demographic and tumor characteristics. For the primary outcome, 7.9% (59 of 744) of patients at tailored sites were referred compared with 0.1% (1 of 692) at education-only sites (difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 5.8%-9.8%). Referrals to a behavioral health clinician were completed by 44 of 59 patients treated at the intervention sites (75%) intervention sites vs 1 of 1 patient at the education-only sites (100%). In adjusted models patients at tailored sites had significantly fewer outpatient visits in medical oncology (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89; P = .001), and no significant difference in utilization of primary care, urgent care, and emergency department visits. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with breast cancer treated in community-based oncology practices, tailored strategies for implementation of routine depression screening compared with an education-only control group resulted in a greater proportion of referrals to behavioral care. Further research is needed to understand the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this program. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02941614.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34982119      PMCID: PMC8728610          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.22596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   157.335


  37 in total

1.  Reflections on the implementation of screening for distress (sixth vital sign) in Canada: key lessons learned.

Authors:  Margaret I Fitch; Fred Ashbury; Irene Nicoll
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Increased risk for depression after breast cancer: a nationwide population-based cohort study of associated factors in Denmark, 1998-2011.

Authors:  Nis P Suppli; Christoffer Johansen; Jane Christensen; Lars V Kessing; Niels Kroman; Susanne O Dalton
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of community intervention trials.

Authors:  A Donner; N Klar
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Recommendations for the implementation of distress screening programs in cancer centers: report from the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW), and Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) joint task force.

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

5.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.

Authors:  Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  Not seeing the forest for the trees: a systematic review of comprehensive distress management programs and implementation strategies.

Authors:  Kristen McCarter; Elizabeth A Fradgley; Ben Britton; Jordan Tait; Christine Paul
Journal:  Curr Opin Support Palliat Care       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.302

7.  Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data.

Authors:  Corinna Koebnick; Annette M Langer-Gould; Michael K Gould; Chun R Chao; Rajan L Iyer; Ning Smith; Wansu Chen; Steven J Jacobsen
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2012

8.  A cross-sectional audit of current practices and areas for improvement of distress screening and management in Australian cancer services: is there a will and a way to improve?

Authors:  Elizabeth A Fradgley; Emma Byrnes; Kristen McCarter; Nicole Rankin; Ben Britton; Kerrie Clover; Gregory Carter; Douglas Bellamy; Chris L Paul
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-04-27       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 9.  Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care.

Authors:  Noah M Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Mary Ann O'Brien; Simon D French; Jane Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China.

Authors:  Wenhua Liang; Weijie Guan; Ruchong Chen; Wei Wang; Jianfu Li; Ke Xu; Caichen Li; Qing Ai; Weixiang Lu; Hengrui Liang; Shiyue Li; Jianxing He
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  1 in total

1.  A mixed method study of medical oncologists' perceived barriers and motivators to addressing long-term effects in breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Alex J Fauer; Patricia A Ganz; Eden R Brauer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 4.624

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.