Search

Objective: To explore: (1) how haematological cancer survivors and their support persons perceive the overall performance of the support person; (2) disagreement between survivor and support person ratings; and (3) characteristics associated with support persons rating their performance poorly.Methods: This is a substudy of a larger project of Australian haematological cancer survivors and their support persons. For this substudy, haematological cancer survivors were recruited from 4 Australian population-based cancer registries and asked to pass on a questionnaire package to their support persons. Survivors who passed on a questionnaire package to their support person were asked to answer questions about the support person and how they perceived the support person's performance. Similarly, support persons answered questions on their own performance as a support person.Results: A total of 924 haematological cancer survivors and 821 support persons were eligible for this study. Most survivors rated their support person as performing very well (84%) while less than half (48%) of support persons rated their own performance as very well. There was significant disagreement between survivor and their support person (dyad) ratings of the support person's performance. Support persons with above normal levels of depression (vs those with normal levels) had significantly higher odds of rating their own performance as "not well/somewhat well."Conclusions: Health care providers should consider providing additional education and skills-based interventions to support persons who experience increased symptoms of depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among rural and urban support persons of haematological cancer survivors and explore factors associated with having one or more of these outcomes. Methods Haematological cancer survivors were identified via 1 of 5 state-based cancer registries and invited to take part in a survey. Those who agreed were asked to pass on a questionnaire package to their support person. Measures included the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, Support Persons' Unmet Need Survey, and sociodemographic questions. Results Nine-hundred and eighty-nine (66%) participating survivors had a participating support person. There were no significant differences in the proportion of urban versus rural support persons who reported elevated levels of depression (21% vs 23%), anxiety (16% vs 17%), or stress (16% vs 20%), P > .05. Odds of reporting at least 1 indicator of psychological morbidity increased by 10% to 17% for each additional high or very high unmet need and by 2% for those who had relocated from their usual place of residence for the survivor to receive treatment and was decreased by 5% to 54% for those support persons who reported that they had no chronic health conditions. Conclusions Psychological outcomes for rural and urban support persons are similar. Those who have poor health, have had to relocate, and who have multiple unmet needs are particularly vulnerable to poor psychological outcomes. These factors should be assessed to enable early intervention for those at risk of poor outcomes. [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]