E Maunsell1, J Brisson, L Deschênes, N Frasure-Smith. 1. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada. elizabeth.maunsell@gre.ulaval.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although psychosocial intervention can reduce psychosocial distress following breast cancer, many women who are experiencing problems are not identified and offered additional help. This trial assessed effects on quality of life of psychologic distress screening among newly diagnosed, nonmetastatic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1990 to 1992, all eligible patients in one regional breast cancer center were identified and offered study participation. Women in both control and experimental groups received brief psychosocial intervention from a social worker at initial treatment. The experimental group also had monthly telephone screening of distress levels using a brief, validated instrument, with additional psychosocial intervention offered only to those with high distress at screening. RESULTS: Among 282 eligible patients, 89% were randomized and completed the study. Participants' psychologic distress levels decreased over the study period (P = .0001). However, no between-group differences were observed. Mean distress scores among control and experimental women at 0-, 3-, and 12-month interviews were 20.7 and 20.4, 15.5 and 15.0, and 14.6 and 13.5, respectively. No between-group differences were observed with respect to physical health, functional status, social and leisure activities, return to work, or marital satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that, among patients who receive a minimal psychosocial intervention as part of their initial cancer care, a distress screening program does not improve quality of life. Minimal psychosocial intervention at initial treatment may be effective in reducing distress, thus making it difficult to obtain additional benefit from a screening program.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Although psychosocial intervention can reduce psychosocial distress following breast cancer, many women who are experiencing problems are not identified and offered additional help. This trial assessed effects on quality of life of psychologic distress screening among newly diagnosed, nonmetastatic breast cancerpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1990 to 1992, all eligible patients in one regional breast cancer center were identified and offered study participation. Women in both control and experimental groups received brief psychosocial intervention from a social worker at initial treatment. The experimental group also had monthly telephone screening of distress levels using a brief, validated instrument, with additional psychosocial intervention offered only to those with high distress at screening. RESULTS: Among 282 eligible patients, 89% were randomized and completed the study. Participants' psychologic distress levels decreased over the study period (P = .0001). However, no between-group differences were observed. Mean distress scores among control and experimental women at 0-, 3-, and 12-month interviews were 20.7 and 20.4, 15.5 and 15.0, and 14.6 and 13.5, respectively. No between-group differences were observed with respect to physical health, functional status, social and leisure activities, return to work, or marital satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that, among patients who receive a minimal psychosocial intervention as part of their initial cancer care, a distress screening program does not improve quality of life. Minimal psychosocial intervention at initial treatment may be effective in reducing distress, thus making it difficult to obtain additional benefit from a screening program.
Authors: S Mose; A N Rahn; K M Budischewski; A C Zander-Heinz; I A Adamietz; S Bormeth; C Thilmann; H D Böttcher Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Elizabeth Maunsell; Stéphane Guay; Evelyne Yandoma; Michel Dorval; Sophie Lauzier; Louise Provencher; André Robidoux Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Anna Meijer; Michelle Roseman; Vanessa C Delisle; Katherine Milette; Brooke Levis; Achyuth Syamchandra; Michael E Stefanek; Donna E Stewart; Peter de Jonge; James C Coyne; Brett D Thombs Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Sandra B Dunbar; Jonathan J Langberg; Carolyn M Reilly; Bindu Viswanathan; Frances McCarty; Steven D Culler; Marian C O'Brien; William S Weintraub Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.976