Search

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: Cancer patients experience high levels of pre-treatment anxiety. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are threatening medical procedures. Preparation for these procedures should include the provision of sensory and procedural information, and addressing fears. The aim of this study was to develop a cancer treatment survey (CaTS) to assess the preparation for chemotherapy and radiotherapy in cancer patients. Methods: Drawing on evidence for how to prepare patients for threatening procedures, items were generated by psychosocial/clinical experts and pilot tested with cancer patients. The 36-item draft CaTS was administered to 192 cancer patients commencing chemotherapy for lymphoma, breast or colon cancer. Participants also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and basic medical and demographic information was recorded. Results: A systematic process of item selection removed 11 items. Factor analysis indicated a two-factor solution, with 11 items representing sensory/psychological concerns and 14 items representing procedural concerns. The two subscales demonstrated excellent internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha both over 0.90 and the average inter-item correlation for each scale exceeded 0.30. Divergent validity was established for both CaTS subscales with the HADS-A and-T (all r<0.30). Younger participants (under 65 years of age) had significantly greater procedural concerns ( p = 0.001; medium effect). Conclusions: The CaTS is a two factor, 25-item measure that assesses sensory/psychological concerns and procedural concerns relating to cancer treatment. The instrument provides a reliable and valid outcome measure for interventions to prepare cancer patients for chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]