Search

Objective: To investigate utilization of mental healthcare among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients from diagnosis to 2 years after treatment, in relation to psychological symptoms, mental disorders, need for mental healthcare, and sociodemographic, clinical and personal factors. Methods: Netherlands Quality of life and Biomedical Cohort study data as measured before treatment, at 3 and 6 months, and at 1 and 2 years after treatment was used (n = 610). Data on mental healthcare utilization (iMCQ), psychological symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Cancer Worry Scale), mental disorders (CIDI interview), need for mental healthcare (Supportive Care Needs Survey Short‐Form 34, either as continuous outcome indicating the level of need or dichotomized into unmet need (yes/no)) and several sociodemographic, clinical and personal factors were collected. Factors associated with mental healthcare utilization were investigated using generalized estimating equations (p < 0.05). Results: Of all HNC patients, 5%–9% used mental healthcare per timepoint. This was 4%–14% in patients with mild‐severe psychological symptoms, 4%–17% in patients with severe psychological symptoms, 15%–35% in patients with a mental disorder and 5%–16% in patients with an unmet need for mental healthcare. Among all patients, higher symptoms of anxiety, a higher need for mental healthcare, lower age, higher disease stage, lower self‐efficacy and higher social support seeking were significantly associated with mental healthcare utilization. Conclusion: Mental health care utilization among HNC patients is limited, and is related to psychological symptoms, need for mental healthcare, and sociodemographic, clinical and personal factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance‐based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single‐behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta‐analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow‐up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta‐regression, effectiveness of single‐behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance‐based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13‐2.15, P =.007). Single‐behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19‐0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance‐based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance‐based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single‐behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance‐based AM interventions for cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective A haematological malignancy is a serious, life-altering disease and may be characterised as an uncontrollable and unpredictable stress situation. In dealing with potentially threatening information, individuals generally utilise two main cognitive coping styles: monitoring (the tendency to seek threat-relevant information) and blunting (avoiding threatening information and seeking distraction). The aim of this study was to obtain insight into the association between cognitive coping style and (a) need for information, (b) satisfaction with information, (c) involvement in decision making, and (d) quality of life (QoL). Methods In this cross-sectional study, coping style was assessed among adult patients diagnosed with a haematological malignancy, using an adapted version of the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory. Information need, information satisfaction, decision-making preference and QoL were measured with validated questionnaires. Results In total, 458 patients returned the questionnaire (66%). A monitoring coping style was positively related to need for both general and specific information. Blunting was positively and QoL was negatively related to need for information. Monitoring was positively related to involvement in decision-making and negatively to information satisfaction. Using multivariate analysis, this relation between monitoring and information satisfaction disappeared, and for blunting, we found a negatively significant relation. QoL was not related to coping style. Conclusions Among patients with haematological malignancies, coping style is related to a need for information, information satisfaction, and involvement in treatment decision-making. Therefore, it is important for health care professionals to be aware of individual differences in cognitive coping style. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a feasibility study that examines the meaning-centered group psychotherapy (MCGP) of cancer survivors. The study proves MCGP's good acceptability, client satisfaction, recruitment strategies, compliance and good acceptability in cancer survivors. Also revealed are the benefits of MCGP to cancer survivors.