Search

Objective: Using a vignette-style DCE in a sample of oncology patients, this study explored: (1) the relative influence of the patient's level of concern about their depression on preferences for care, (2) the relative influence of depression severity according to a mental health checklist on preferred treatment-seeking options, and (3) whether patient age and gender were associated with depression care preference.Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of cancer patients was conducted. Hypothetical vignettes to elicit care preferences were created using two attributes: the cancer patient's level of concern about depression (a little or a great deal) and results of a mental health checklist (not depressed or very depressed). Three response options for care preferences were presented, including a self-directed approach, shared care approach, and clinician-directed referral approach. Participants chose their most and least preferred options.Results: A total of 281 cancer patients completed the survey. There was a significant association between level of concern and the most preferred option. Those with a great deal of concern about depression preferred to receive referral from their clinician more than those with a little concern about depression. Males were significantly more likely to select a self-directed approach as their most preferred option.Conclusions: An oncology patient's level of concern about depression may influence the type of care they want to receive from their cancer doctor for depression. This finding has implications for depression screening in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe among radiation oncology patients: (1) the proportion likely to be experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety as identified by (a) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; standardised tool), (b) patient-reported single items (ultrashort tool), and (c) radiation oncologist-reported single items (clinician judgement); (2) preferences for being offered psychological support; and (3) agreement between single-item measures and the HADS.Methods: Adult cancer patients (n = 152; consent rate 58%) receiving radiotherapy completed a touchscreen tablet survey assessing symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS and a single-item tool) and support preferences. Each participant's treating radiation oncologist completed a survey assessing his or her perception of whether the patient was anxious or depressed.Results: Prevalence estimates for likely depression (6.9-18%) and anxiety (17-33%) overlapped across the 3 measures. Overall, only 9.9% of patients (95% CI, 5.6%-16%) wanted to be offered psychological support. For depression, agreement between the HADS and ultrashort tool was fair (κ = 0.37, P < 0.0001); agreement between the HADS and clinician judgement was slight (κ = 0.14, P < 0.05). For anxiety, agreement between the HADS and clinician judgement was not significantly greater than chance alone (κ = 0.04, P = 0.33), and agreement between the HADS and ultrashort tool was moderate (κ = 0.49, P < 0.0001).Conclusions: These findings highlight the important role that oncology consultations play in interpreting assessment tool results and responding to individual patient's history and preferences for psychological support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Our aim is to examine whether provider screening for physical and emotional symptoms, as reported by medical oncology outpatients, varies across medical oncology treatment centres.Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 716 patients attending the outpatient medical oncology department of six public cancer treatment centres across five Australian states participated. Four patient-report survey items explored how often patients were specifically asked by clinical staff at the treatment centre about their (i) emotional distress (anxiety, distress and depression), (ii) pain, (iii) fatigue and (iv) other physical symptoms (e.g. nausea and constipation). Asking at less than half of all appointments was classified as infrequent screening.Results: No significant associations were found between treatment centre and symptom screening for emotional distress (p = 0.65), pain (p = 0.21), fatigue (p = 0.95) and other physical symptoms (p = 0.40). The proportion of patients who were regularly screened versus infrequently screened was significantly higher for physical symptoms than emotional symptoms (p < 0.001): 36% infrequently screened for emotional distress (range: 33-45%), 15% infrequently screened for pain (range: 9-21%), 16% infrequently screened for fatigue (range: 15-19%) and 11% infrequently screened for other physical symptoms (range: 5-17%).Conclusions: No significant variation in symptom screening was found across treatment centres. While the majority of patients received recommended care, treatment centres must continue to improve symptom screening rates, particularly for emotional distress. However, screening is only the first step and must be accompanied by the offer of help and provision of help to relieve patient suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although elevated psychological distress is commonly reported among cancer patients, our understanding of patients' preferences for, and perceived barriers to, accessing psychological support from key cancer care providers is limited. The aim of this study was to assess cancer patients' level of concern about, and willingness to discuss, their anxiety and depression.Methods: Radiation oncology outpatients completed a touchscreen computer survey with questions assessing their concern about and willingness to discuss anxiety and depression.Results: Among consenting respondents (n = 145), 51% (95% CI: 43%-59%) were concerned about their levels of anxiety, and 34% (95% CI: 26%-42%) about their levels of depression. If experiencing anxiety or depression, 92% (95% CI: 87%-96%) would want to discuss this with their general practitioner (GP), and 60% (95% CI: 52%-68%) with their cancer doctor. Almost half of the 58 respondents who would not want to discuss anxiety or depression with their cancer doctor indicated that this was because there were more important things to talk about during their appointment.Conclusions: The majority of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy would be willing to discuss anxiety and depression with their cancer doctor and GP. These findings provide additional support for service delivery models in which GPs and oncologists play key roles in initiating and coordinating discussions about cancer patients' psychosocial concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective A patient-centred approach to discussing life expectancy with cancer patients is recommended in Western countries. However, this approach to eliciting and meeting patient preferences can be challenging for clinicians. The aims of this study were the following: (i) to examine cancer patients' preferences for life expectancy disclosure; and (ii) to explore agreement between cancer patients' preferences for, and perceived experiences of, life expectancy disclosure. Methods Cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment in metropolitan Australia completed a cross-sectional touchscreen computer survey including optional questions about their life expectancy disclosure preferences and experiences. Results Of the 208 respondents, 178 (86%) indicated that they would prefer their clinician to ask them before discussing life expectancy, and 30 (14%) indicated that they would prefer others (i.e. clinicians, family) to decide whether they were given life expectancy information. Of the 175 respondents who were classified as having a self- determined or other-determined disclosure experience, 105 (60%) reported an experience of life expectancy disclosure that was in accordance with their preferences. Cohen's κ was −0.04 (95% CI, −0.17, 0.08), indicating very poor agreement between patients' preferences for and perceived experiences of life expectancy disclosure ( p = 0.74). Conclusions In light of patient-centred prognosis disclosure guidelines, our findings of a majority preference for, and experience of, a self-determined approach to life expectancy disclosure amongst radiation oncology patients are encouraging. However, poor agreement between preferences and experiences highlights that additional effort from clinicians is required in order to achieve a truly patient-centred approach to life expectancy disclosure. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Few population-based studies have assessed the needs of haematological cancer survivors or conducted international comparisons. We aimed to assess and compare the unmet needs of Australian and Canadian haematological cancer survivors. Methods Two cross-sectional datasets were analysed. Survivors were recruited from population-based cancer registries and sent a self-report survey containing the Survivors Unmet Needs Survey. Australians were aged 18-80 years at the time of study and diagnosed in the last 3 years. Canadians were diagnosed 1-5 years prior and aged 19 years and over at diagnosis. Results A total of 268 Australian and 169 Canadian survivors returned a completed survey. 'Dealing with feeling tired' was identified as the highest concern by survivors. Country (LRχ2 = 4.0(1), p = 0.045) was associated with survivors reporting a 'high/very high' unmet need with 'worry about earning money,' with Australians reporting marginally nonsignificantly higher odds than Canadians (OR 2.1; 95% CI; 0.99, 4.3). Country was not significantly associated with any other outcome. Having a personal expense in the last month as a result of having cancer, younger age at diagnosis, female sex, vocational or other level education, and consulting a health care professional for cancer treatment or concerns about cancer in the last month were associated with multiple areas of need. Conclusions Australian and Canadian haematological cancer survivors were found to experience similar levels of unmet needs. Overall, haematological cancer survivors may require additional assistance in dealing with feeling tired. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Needs Assessment for Advanced Cancer Patients (NA-ACP) is a 132-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess the seven needs domains of patients with advanced, incurable cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the short derivative form of that questionnaire with advanced lung cancer patients. Methods: Item factor loadings, item test-retest data and response distributions were used to retain or reject items from the original NA-ACP scale. This resulted in 38 items being maintained, preserving the original subscales. The response scale was simplified following feedback from patients. 108 people with advanced lung cancer completed the shortened NA-ALCP along with measures of psychological distress (HADS, DT) and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30). A-priori predictions were made for divergent and convergent validity. Results: Internal consistency coefficients were satisfactory for six of seven subscales, range 0.71-0.95. Correlations between NA-ALCP and HADS, DT and EORTC-QLQ-C30 provided support for 11 of the 22 divergent ( r = 0.13-0.27) and convergent predictions ( r = 0.45-0.71). Conclusions: Subscales of the NA-ALCP demonstrated internal reliability consistent with the original scale. Results provided supporting evidence for divergent and convergent validity. This study indicates that the NA-ALCP is psychometrically robust, easily understood and one-quarter the length of the original version. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meeting the psychological, social and physical needs of people with cancer is a challenge for individual health practitioners, health administrators and health policy makers. However, there is a considerable gap between recommended best-evidence psychosocial and supportive care and actual practice. This paper provides a discussion of the reasons for this gap using the precede-proceed model as a theoretical framework. The model is a useful way of classifying potential barriers to the application of recommended best practice into three categories: predisposing factors which influence motivation to behave in a particular way, enabling factors which facilitate the enactment of the behaviour and reinforcing factors which increase the likelihood that the behaviour will be maintained over time. Ways of addressing these barriers are proposed and discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]