Search

To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone. • In a lay navigator-driven model, 98% of patients were screened for financial hardship when added to distress screening. • Distress Thermometer had 57% sensitivity to detect financial hardship measured by Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity. • Distress Thermometer had 77% specificity to detect financial hardship measured by Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity. • 40% of patients with financial hardship would be missed if using distress screening alone. • Financial hardship screening was acceptable to surveyed patients with input provided about the optimal time and setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionSupportive care models considering inclusivity and community services to improve integrated care for cancer survivors are limited. In this case study, we described the implementation of a multidisciplinary care model employing routine distress screening and embedded integrated care pathways to integrate care across disciplines and care sectors, while remaining inclusive of the multi-ethnic and multilingual population in Singapore. We reported implementation outcomes after 18 months of implementation.DescriptionWe reviewed the model's process indicators from September 2019 to February 2021 at the largest public ambulatory cancer centre. Outcomes assessed included penetration, fidelity to screening protocol, and feasibility in three aspects - inclusiveness of different ethnic and language groups, responsiveness to survivors reporting high distress, and types of community service referrals.Discussion/conclusionWe elucidated opportunities to promote access to community services and inclusivity. Integration of community services from tertiary settings should be systematic through mutually beneficial educational and outreach initiatives, complemented by their inclusion in integrated care pathways to encourage systematic referrals and care coordination. A hybrid approach to service delivery is crucial in ensuring inclusivity while providing flexibility towards external changes such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Future work should explore using telehealth to bolster inclusiveness and advance community care integration.

Objective: Distress screening is standard practice among oncology patients, yet few routine distress screening programs exist for cancer caregivers. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of Cancer Support Source‐CaregiverTM (CSS‐CG, 33‐item), an electronic distress screening and automated referral program with a consultation (S + C) to improve caregiver unmet needs, quality of life, anxiety, depression, and distress relative to Enhanced Usual Care (EUC; access to educational materials). Method: 150 caregivers of patients with varying sites/stages of cancer were randomized to S + C or EUC and completed assessments at baseline, 3‐months post‐baseline, and 6‐months post‐baseline. A subset of participants (n = 10) completed in‐depth qualitative interviews. Results: S + C was feasible: among 75 caregivers randomized to S + C, 66 (88%) completed CSS‐CG and consultation. Top concerns reported were: (1) patient's pain and/or physical discomfort; (2) patient's cancer progressing/recurring; and (3) feeling nervous or afraid. Differences between groups in improvements on outcomes by T2 and T3 were modest (ds < 0.53) in favor of S + C. Qualitative data underscored the helpfulness of S + C in connecting caregivers to support and helping them feel cared for and integrated into cancer care. Conclusions: S + C is feasible, acceptable, and yields more positive impact on emotional well‐being than usual care. Future studies will examine programmatic impact among caregivers experiencing higher acuity of needs, and benefits of earlier integration of S + C on caregiver, patient, and healthcare system outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/hypothesisPsychosocial distress is common among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) and is associated with poorer quality of life and clinical outcomes. Despite these risks, distress screening is not widely implemented in HNC care. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of psychosocial distress and its related factors in routine care of patients with HNC.MethodsData from medical records between September 2017 and March 2020 were analyzed. Psychosocial distress was measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Distress Thermometer (DT), and a modified HNC-specific problem list; depression and anxiety were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were conducted to report prevalence of distress, depression and anxiety, and factors associated with clinical distress. Implementation outcomes, including rates of referrals and follow-up for distressed patients, are also reported.ResultsTwo hundred and eighty seven HNC patients completed the questionnaire (age 64.3 ± 14.9 years), with a mean distress score of 4.51 ± 3.35. Of those, 57% (n = 163) reported clinical distress (DT ≥ 4). Pain (odds ratio [OR] = 3.31, 95% CI = 1.75-6.26), fatigue (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.1.7-5.05), anxiety (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.30-2.05), and depression (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.04-2.18) were significantly associated with clinical distress (P

(1) Background: International cancer treatment guidelines recommend low-threshold psycho-oncological support based on nurses’ routine distress screening (e.g., via the distress thermometer and problem list). This study aims to explore factors which are associated with declining psycho-oncological support in order to increase nurses’ efficiency in screening patients for psycho-oncological support needs. (2) Methods: Using machine learning, routinely recorded clinical data from 4064 patients was analyzed for predictors of patients declining psycho-oncological support. Cross validation and nested resampling were used to guard against model overfitting. (3) Results: The developed model detects patients who decline psycho-oncological support with a sensitivity of 89% (area under the cure of 79%, accuracy of 68.5%). Overall, older patients, patients with a lower score on the distress thermometer, fewer comorbidities, few physical problems, and those who do not feel sad, afraid, or worried refused psycho-oncological support. (4) Conclusions: Thus, current screening procedures seem worthy to be part of daily nursing routines in oncology, but nurses may need more time and training to rule out misconceptions of patients on psycho-oncological support.

(1) Background: International cancer treatment guidelines recommend low-threshold psycho-oncological support based on nurses' routine distress screening (e.g., via the distress thermometer and problem list). This study aims to explore factors which are associated with declining psycho-oncological support in order to increase nurses' efficiency in screening patients for psycho-oncological support needs. (2) Methods: Using machine learning, routinely recorded clinical data from 4064 patients was analyzed for predictors of patients declining psycho-oncological support. Cross validation and nested resampling were used to guard against model overfitting. (3) Results: The developed model detects patients who decline psycho-oncological support with a sensitivity of 89% (area under the cure of 79%, accuracy of 68.5%). Overall, older patients, patients with a lower score on the distress thermometer, fewer comorbidities, few physical problems, and those who do not feel sad, afraid, or worried refused psycho-oncological support. (4) Conclusions: Thus, current screening procedures seem worthy to be part of daily nursing routines in oncology, but nurses may need more time and training to rule out misconceptions of patients on psycho-oncological support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responding to calls for additional research that identifies effective distress screening (DS) processes, including referral practices subsequent to screening and receipt of recommended care, we engaged in qualitative research as part of a larger (mixed methods) study of distress screening. This qualitative inquiry of oncology professionals across different facilities in the United States examined routine DS implementation, facilitators and challenges staff encounter with DS processes, and staff members' perceived value of DS. We conducted key informant interviews and focus groups with staff in 4 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited oncology facilities (a total of 18 participants) to understand implementation of routine DS within oncology care. We used a rigorous data analysis design, including inductive and deductive approaches. Respondents believe DS enhances patient care and described ways to improve DS processes, including administering DS at multiple points throughout oncology care, using patient-administrated DS methods, and enhancing electronic health records infrastructure to better collect, record, and retrieve DS data. Respondents also identified the need for additional psychosocial staff at their facilities to provide timely psychosocial care. Results reinforce the value of DS in cancer care, including the importance of follow-up to screening with psychosocial oncology providers. Understanding and resolving the barriers and facilitators to implementing DS are important to ensure appropriate psychosocial care for people with cancer. Insights from oncology staff may be used to enhance the quality of DS and subsequent psychosocial care, which is an essential component of oncology care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Oncology guidelines for distress management recommend use of the single‐item distress thermometer (DT) and accompanying Problem List (PL) to identify patients with high distress levels and their potential sources of distress. However, oncology practices have yet to establish standardized protocols to screen and triage caregivers with high distress levels. With an eye toward integrating caregiver‐centered support services into cancer care, this mixed‐methods study sought to assess caregiver distress and challenges that may contribute to their distress. Methods: Nineteen caregivers of metastatic breast cancer patients (60% female, 47% ethnic/racial minority) completed an interview and a survey comprised of the DT, the original 39‐item PL, and five additional caregiver‐specific PL items. Results: Caregivers reported moderate distress levels and more than half exceeded the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cut‐off, denoting significant distress. There was no association between caregiver distress and the number of items endorsed on the original PL. Qualitative analysis identified nine problem domains as areas of caregiver unmet need needs (i.e., practical challenges, caregiving responsibilities, social/relationship issues, caregiver and patient emotional well‐being, caregiver and patient physical well‐being, spiritual well‐being, and communication). Two of the problem domains (caregiving responsibilities and communication) were not captured in any way by the original PL. Conclusion: With further research and development, the identified domains could serve as the basis for a caregiver‐specific PL to facilitate triage and referral when incorporated as part of routine distress screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction International guidelines on cancer treatment recommend screening for early detection and treatment of distress. However, screening rates are insufficient. In the present study, a survey was developed to assess perceived systemic barriers to distress screening. Methods A three‐step approach was used for the study. Based on qualitative content analysis of interviews and an expert panel, an initial survey with 53 questions on barriers to screening was designed. It was completed by 98 nurses in a large comprehensive cancer center in Switzerland. From this, a short version of the survey with 24 questions was derived using exploratory principal component analysis. This survey was completed by 150 nurses in four cancer centers in Switzerland. A confirmatory factor analysis was then performed on the shortened version, yielding a final set of 14 questions. Results The initial set of 53 questions was reduced to a set of 14 validated questions retaining 53% of the original variance. These 14 questions allow for an assessment within 2–3 min that identifies relevant barriers to distress screening from the perspective of those responsible for implementation of distress screening. Across several hospitals in Switzerland, the timing of the first distress screening, lack of capacity, patient and staff overload, and refusal of distressed patients to be referred to support services emerged as major problems. Conclusion The validated 14 questions on barriers to screening cancer patients for distress enable clinicians and hospital administrators to quickly identify relevant issues and take action to improve screening programs.

Abstract Background We evaluated whether patients' initial screening symptoms were related to subsequent utilization of supportive care services and hospitalizations, and whether patient‐level demographics, symptoms, hospitalizations, and supportive care service utilization were associated with mortality in primarily low‐income, older, Black Veterans with cancer. Methods This quality improvement project created collaborative clinics to conduct cancer distress screenings and refer to supportive care services at an urban, VA medical center. All patients completed a distress screen with follow‐up screening every 3 months. Supportive care utilization, hospitalization rates, and mortality were abstracted through medical records. Poisson regression models and cox proportional hazard models were utilized. Results Five hundred and eighty five screened patients were older (m = 72), mostly Black 70% (n = 412), and had advanced cancer 54%. Fifty‐eight percent (n = 340) were screened only once with 81% (n = 470) receiving ≥1 supportive care service and 51.5% (n = 297) being hospitalized ≥1 time 18 months following initial screen. Symptom severity was significantly related to number of hospitalizations. Low mood was significantly related to higher supportive services (p

Introduction: International guidelines on cancer treatment recommend screening for early detection and treatment of distress. However, screening rates are insufficient. In the present study, a survey was developed to assess perceived systemic barriers to distress screening. Methods: A three‐step approach was used for the study. Based on qualitative content analysis of interviews and an expert panel, an initial survey with 53 questions on barriers to screening was designed. It was completed by 98 nurses in a large comprehensive cancer center in Switzerland. From this, a short version of the survey with 24 questions was derived using exploratory principal component analysis. This survey was completed by 150 nurses in four cancer centers in Switzerland. A confirmatory factor analysis was then performed on the shortened version, yielding a final set of 14 questions. Results: The initial set of 53 questions was reduced to a set of 14 validated questions retaining 53% of the original variance. These 14 questions allow for an assessment within 2–3 min that identifies relevant barriers to distress screening from the perspective of those responsible for implementation of distress screening. Across several hospitals in Switzerland, the timing of the first distress screening, lack of capacity, patient and staff overload, and refusal of distressed patients to be referred to support services emerged as major problems. Conclusion: The validated 14 questions on barriers to screening cancer patients for distress enable clinicians and hospital administrators to quickly identify relevant issues and take action to improve screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While distress is prevalent among individuals living with cancer, distress management has not been optimized across cancer care delivery despite standards for screening. This manuscript describes the development of an enhanced Distress Thermometer (eDT) and shares the process for deploying the (eDT) across a cancer institute by highlighting improvements at the provider, system, and clinic levels. Methods: Focus groups and surveys were used at the provider-level to outline the problem space and to identify solutions to improve distress screening and management. Through stakeholder engagement, an eDT was developed and rolled out across the cancer institute. Technical EHR infrastructure changes were implemented at the system-level to improve the use of the distress screening findings and generate automated referrals for specialty services. Clinic workflows were adapted to improve screening and distress management using the eDT. Results: Stakeholder focus group participants (n=17) and survey respondents (n=13) found the eDT to be feasible and acceptable for distress identification and management. System-level technical EHR changes resulted in high accuracy with patient identification for distress management, and 100% of patients with moderate to severe distress were connected directly to an appropriate specialty provider. Clinic-level workflow changes to expand eDT use improved compliance rates with distress screening from 85% to 96% over a 1-year period. Conclusions: An eDT that provides more context to patient-reported problems improved identification of referral pathways for patients experiencing moderate to high distress during cancer treatment. Combining process improvement interventions across multiple levels in the cancer care delivery system enhanced the success of this project. These processes and tools could support improved distress screening and management across cancer care delivery settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We evaluated whether patients' initial screening symptoms were related to subsequent utilization of supportive care services and hospitalizations, and whether patient‐level demographics, symptoms, hospitalizations, and supportive care service utilization were associated with mortality in primarily low‐income, older, Black Veterans with cancer. Methods: This quality improvement project created collaborative clinics to conduct cancer distress screenings and refer to supportive care services at an urban, VA medical center. All patients completed a distress screen with follow‐up screening every 3 months. Supportive care utilization, hospitalization rates, and mortality were abstracted through medical records. Poisson regression models and cox proportional hazard models were utilized. Results: Five hundred and eighty five screened patients were older (m = 72), mostly Black 70% (n = 412), and had advanced cancer 54%. Fifty‐eight percent (n = 340) were screened only once with 81% (n = 470) receiving ≥1 supportive care service and 51.5% (n = 297) being hospitalized ≥1 time 18 months following initial screen. Symptom severity was significantly related to number of hospitalizations. Low mood was significantly related to higher supportive services (p < 0.001), but not hospitalizations (p ≥ 0.52). Pain, fatigue, physical function, nutrition, and physical symptoms were significantly associated with more supportive services and hospitalizations (p < 0.01). Twenty percent (n = 168) died; Veterans who were Black, had lower stage cancers, better physical health, and utilized less supportive care services had lower odds of mortality (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: Individuals with elevated distress needs and those reporting lower physical function utilized more supportive care services and had higher hospitalization rates. Lower physical function, greater supportive care use, higher stage cancer, and being non‐Black were associated with higher odds of death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Supportive care models considering inclusivity and community services to improve integrated care for cancer survivors are limited. In this case study, we described the implementation of a multidisciplinary care model employing routine distress screening and embedded integrated care pathways to integrate care across disciplines and care sectors, while remaining inclusive of the multi-ethnic and multilingual population in Singapore. We reported implementation outcomes after 18 months of implementation. Description: We reviewed the model's process indicators from September 2019 to February 2021 at the largest public ambulatory cancer centre. Outcomes assessed included penetration, fidelity to screening protocol, and feasibility in three aspects -- inclusiveness of different ethnic and language groups, responsiveness to survivors reporting high distress, and types of community service referrals. Discussion/conclusion: We elucidated opportunities to promote access to community services and inclusivity. Integration of community services from tertiary settings should be systematic through mutually beneficial educational and outreach initiatives, complemented by their inclusion in integrated care pathways to encourage systematic referrals and care coordination. A hybrid approach to service delivery is crucial in ensuring inclusivity while providing flexibility towards external changes such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Future work should explore using telehealth to bolster inclusiveness and advance community care integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Innere Medizin (2731-7080) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Head and neck cancers (HNC) have higher rates of emotional distress than other cancer types and the general population. This paper compares the prevalence of emotional distress in HNC across various distress screening measures and examines whether significant distress or distress screening are associated with cancer-related survival. A retrospective observational cohort design was employed, with data collected from the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) and linkages to administrative databases from 2010 to 2016. Descriptive and prevalence data were reported using multiple concurrently administered distress tools, including the Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 (GAD-7), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-revised (ESAS-r), and MD Anderson Symptom Index-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Across measures, 7.8 to 28.1% of the sample reported clinically significant emotional distress, with PHQ-9 and GAD-7 identifying lowest prevalence of moderate/severe distress, and the ultrashort distress screens within ESAS-r and MDASI-HN performing equivalently. Cox hazards models were used in univariate and multivariate survival analyses. ESAS depression (≥4), but not anxiety, was associated with increased risk of cancer-related mortality and patient completion of DART was associated with greater cancer-related survival. The findings underscore the importance of implementing routine distress screening for HNC populations and the utility of ultra-brief screening measures.

Background: Using an iterative user-centered design process, our team developed a patient-centered adaptive supportive care system, PatientCareAnywhere, that provides comprehensive biopsychosocial screening and supportive cancer care to patients across the continuum of care adaptively. The overarching goal of PatientCareAnywhere is to improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and self-efficacy of patients with cancer by empowering them with self-management skills and bringing cancer care support directly to them at home. Such support is adaptive to the patient's needs and health status and coordinated across multiple sources in the forms of referrals, education, engagement of community resources, and secure social communication., Objective: This study aims to assess the usability of the new web-based PatientCareAnywhere system and examine the preliminary efficacy of PatientCareAnywhere to improve patient-reported outcomes compared with usual care., Methods: For phase 1, usability testing participants included patients with cancer (n=4) and caregivers (n=7) who evaluated the software prototype and provided qualitative (eg, interviews) and quantitative (eg, System Usability Scale) feedback. For phase 2, participants in the 3-month pilot randomized controlled trial were randomized to receive the PatientCareAnywhere intervention (n=36) or usual care control condition (n=36). HRQOL and cancer-relevant self-efficacy were assessed at baseline (preintervention assessment) and 12 weeks from baseline (postintervention assessment); mean differences between pre- and postintervention scores were compared between the 2 groups., Results: Participants were highly satisfied with the prototype and reported above-average acceptable usability, with a mean System Usability Scale score of 84.09 (SD 10.02). Qualitative data supported the overall usability and perceived usefulness of the intervention, with a few design features (eg, "help request" function) added based on participant feedback. With regard to the randomized controlled trial, patients in the intervention group reported significant improvements in HRQOL from pre- to postintervention scores (mean difference 6.08, SD 15.26) compared with the control group (mean difference -2.95, SD 10.63; P=.01). In contrast, there was no significant between-group difference in self-efficacy (P=.09)., Conclusions: Overall, PatientCareAnywhere represents a user-friendly, functional, and acceptable supportive care intervention with preliminary efficacy to improve HRQOL among patients diagnosed with cancer. Future studies are needed to further establish the efficacy of PatientCareAnywhere as well as explore strategies to enhance user engagement and investigate the optimal intensity, frequency, and use of the intervention to improve patient outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02408406; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02408406., (©Sharon H Baik, Karen Clark, Marisol Sanchez, Matthew Loscalzo, Ashley Celis, Marianne Razavi, Dershung Yang, William Dale, Niina Haas. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 10.07.2024.)

Head and neck cancers (HNC) have higher rates of emotional distress than other cancer types and the general population. This paper compares the prevalence of emotional distress in HNC across various distress screening measures and examines whether significant distress or distress screening are associated with cancer-related survival. A retrospective observational cohort design was employed, with data collected from the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) and linkages to administrative databases from 2010 to 2016. Descriptive and prevalence data were reported using multiple concurrently administered distress tools, including the Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorders-7 (GAD-7), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-revised (ESAS-r), and MD Anderson Symptom Index-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Across measures, 7.8 to 28.1% of the sample reported clinically significant emotional distress, with PHQ-9 and GAD-7 identifying lowest prevalence of moderate/severe distress, and the ultrashort distress screens within ESAS-r and MDASI-HN performing equivalently. Cox hazards models were used in univariate and multivariate survival analyses. ESAS depression (≥4), but not anxiety, was associated with increased risk of cancer-related mortality and patient completion of DART was associated with greater cancer-related survival. The findings underscore the importance of implementing routine distress screening for HNC populations and the utility of ultra-brief screening measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the impact of a telemedicine-delivered intervention aimed at identifying unmet needs and cancer-related distress (CRD) following the end of active treatment on supportive care referral patterns. Methods: We used a quasi-experimental design to compare supportive care referral patterns between a group of rural cancer survivors receiving the intervention and a control group (N = 60). We evaluated the impact of the intervention on the number and type of referrals offered and whether or not the participant accepted the referral. CRD was measured using a modified version of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer and Problem List. Results: Overall, 30% of participants received a referral for further post-treatment supportive care. Supporting the benefits of the intervention, the odds of being offered a referral were 13 times higher for those who received the intervention than those in the control group. However, even among the intervention group, only 28.6% of participants who were offered a referral for further psychosocial care accepted. Conclusions: A nursing telemedicine visit was successful in identifying areas of high distress and increasing referrals. However, referral uptake was low, particularly for psychosocial support. Distance to care and stigma associated with seeking psychosocial care may be factors. Further study to improve referral uptake is warranted. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Screening for CRD may be inadequate for cancer survivors unless patients can be successfully referred to further supportive care. Strategies to improve uptake of psychosocial referrals is of high importance for rural survivors, who are at higher risk of CRD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Screening for cancer-related psychosocial distress is recommended for patients with cancer; however, data on the long-term prevalence of distress and its natural history in survivors are scarce, preventing recommendations for screening frequency and duration. We sought to evaluate longitudinal distress in cancer patients. Methods: We evaluated longitudinal distress screening data for patients with cancer treated or surveilled at our institution from 2010 to 2018. Anxiety, depression, insurance/financial, family, memory, and strength-related distress were separately assessed and analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to evaluate factors associated with distress subtypes. Results: In 5660 patients, distress was the highest at diagnosis for anxiety, depression, financial, and overall distress. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with distress at diagnosis included younger age, female gender, disease site/stage, payor, and income, varying by subtype-specific analyses. Severe distress in at least one subtype persisted in over 30% of survivors surveyed through 10 years after diagnosis. Over half of patients with initially severe distress at diagnosis improved within 12 months; however, distress worsened in 20–30% of patients with moderate, low, and no initial distress, regardless of the distress subtype. Conclusion: Psychosocial distress in cancer survivors is a long-lasting burden with implications for quality of life and oncologic outcomes. Severe distress remains prevalent through 10 years after diagnosis in survivors receiving continued care at cancer centers and results from both persistent and new sources of distress in a variety of psychosocial domains. Longitudinal distress screening is an invaluable tool for providing comprehensive patient-centered cancer care and is recommended to detect new or recurrent distress in cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have examined the practices of U.S. oncology social workers since the implementation of distress screening. This study presents data about oncology social work practice behaviors, including participation in distress screening and interdisciplinary team integration. Using a cross-sectional survey design, Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW) members were invited to complete the anonymous web-based survey between June and September 2019. AOSW members (N = 1116) were invited through email and listserv posts to participate in the survey with 533 (47.8%) responding. A quantitative on-line survey was used to investigate demographics, distress screening roles and other practice behaviors. Descriptive analyses were conducted on the data. Respondents engaged in a range of practice behaviors consistent with the Standards and Scope of Practice published by AOSW, primarily engaging in patient-focused work. They reported viewing their role as integrated with the interdisciplinary team. Respondents were highly involved in distress screening processes, primarily receiving referrals from distress screening but also collecting/reviewing screening results and referring patients to other providers based on those results. Knowledge about the ways that oncology social workers enact their role across settings and locations could be useful to those developing effective and integrated psychosocial oncology programs, especially distress screening protocols. Specific knowledge about the practice behaviors of oncology social workers in the U.S. may also help to delineate the role from the work of other interdisciplinary oncology team members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency of screening instrument‐detected depression and anxiety in outpatients on initial presentation to a consultation psychiatric oncology clinic. The secondary objectives were to identify characteristics associated with depression and anxiety among these patients, and to determine the optimal cut‐off score for the ESAS‐Anxiety (ESAS‐A) and ESAS‐Depression (ESAS‐D) items, using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) and the General Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD‐7) as a gold standard in cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 1221 consecutive cancer patients seen in the Psychiatric Oncology Center as an initial consult between June 1, 2014 and January 31, 2017. Results: When the cutoff was 10 for the PHQ‐9 and the GAD‐7, 60% of patients self‐reported depression and 51% self‐reported anxiety. When the cutoff was 15 (severe symptom) for the PHQ‐9 and GAD‐7, approximately 30% and 27% of the patients had severe depression or anxiety, respectively. Age and gender were found to be associated with anxiety. An ESAS cutoff value of ≥3 for depression and ≥5 for anxiety resulted in sensitivity of 0.84 and 0.85 when using PHQ 9 ≥ 10 for depression and GAD 7 ≥ 10 for anxiety, respectively. Conclusions: Self‐reported depression and anxiety are frequent symptoms among patients at a psychiatric oncology center for an initial visit. ESAS‐A and ESAS‐D have good sensitivity for anxiety and depression screening of cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of routine distress screening in cancer patients is widely acknowledged, though non-compliance with screening protocols is common. Cited reasons for non-adherence include lack of time and expertise and concerns about the resources associated with the identification and management of clinically relevant distress. This commentary examines changes in distress among people with cancer who participated in a tele-based psychosocial intervention, from the point of initial distress screening to 12 months after commencing the intervention. The goal is to contribute to the discussion about the potential infrastructure requirements of implementing screening programs among screening 'hesitant' cancer care services. Secondary analysis showed a general downward distress trajectory though the greatest reduction occurred between recruitment and baseline and before receiving a low-intensity psychosocial intervention (β = − 1.84, 95% CI − 2.12, − 1.56). While acknowledging transience of distress in some patients, our results support the possible therapeutic benefit of assessing and validating individuals' distress in the hope of preventing the development of more overt health problems associated with undiagnosed and untreated symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite abundant evidence that emotional distress is frequent in cancer patients and associated with adverse health outcomes, distress screening rates and adequate referrals to psychological support programs among those in need are insufficient in many cancer centers. We therefore aimed to analyze patient‐ and treatment‐related barriers to distress screening and referrals to psychological support as a mandatory component of best‐practice cancer care. Method: In the present explorative study, latent class analysis was used to identify homogeneous subgroups among 4837 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2011 and 2019. Results: Four subgroups were identified. Patients with a mental disorder and psychopharmacology were least probable to be screened for distress. Together with patients aged 65 or older and male patients, they were also less likely to receive psychological support. Patients hospitalized for 28 days or longer were most likely to be both screened and to receive psychological support. Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are recommended not neglect patients with mental disorders and psychopharmacological treatment as well as male and elderly patients when screening for distress and providing access to psychological support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Best Practice Onkologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Patients with cancer are ideally screened for symptoms, including distress, using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This initiative was developed to ensure patients without access to an electronic portal were screened for distress and related symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, these patients could complete screening in clinic. However, many visits transitioned to telehealth. We implemented a standardized telephone outreach process targeting patients without active electronic portal accounts to improve remote symptom monitoring. Outreach resulted in 172 completed screens, identifying 110 needs for 63 individuals. Twenty-eight patients completed patient portal enrollment. Outreach calls captured a higher percentage of Black patients (34%) and a higher percentage of 61-80 year olds (69%) compared to portal users. Telephone outreach during the pandemic captured data that otherwise would have been missed in elderly and minority patients without electronic patient portal access. Patient engagement is vital to the distress screening process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nearly 3 million U.S. family caregivers support someone with cancer. However, oncology clinic-based service lines that proactively screen, assess, and support cancer caregivers are nearly nonexistent. Objective: To examine first-year experiences of a nurse-led clinic-based telehealth support service (FamilyStrong) for family caregivers of patients with recently diagnosed grade IV brain tumors. Methods: This is a retrospective evaluation of operational outcomes from initial implementation of the FamilyStrong Service, developed in partnership with Caregiver and Bereavement Support Services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and the UAB Center for Palliative and Supportive Care. From August 2018 to December 2019, 53 family caregivers were proactively identified and enrolled by a palliative care nurse, working approximately one day/week, who performed monthly caregiver distress thermometer screenings by phone and provided emotional, educational, problem-solving, and referral support. Results: Enrolled family caregivers were a mean age of 53.5 years and mostly female (62.3%), full- or part-time employed (67.9%), and the patient's spouse/partner (79.3%). Caregivers provided support 6.7 days/week for 11.2 hours/day. The palliative care nurse performed 235 distress screenings and provided support that included 68 documented instances of emotional, problem-solving, and educational support, 41 nurse-facilitated communications with the neuro-oncology team about patient issues, and 24 referrals to UAB and community services (e.g., counseling). The most common problems caregivers wanted assistance with included: managing their relative's health condition and symptoms (51%), coordinating care/services (21%), and planning for the future/advance care planning (17%). Discussion: The FamilyStrong Program is among the first "real world" oncology clinic-based formal support services for advance cancer family caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is much interest in screening for and treating psychosocial distress in cancer patients; however, little is known about if and how psychosocial services are provided for patients demonstrating significant levels of distress. Oncology social workers (OSWs) are the primary providers of psychosocial care for cancer patients and their families, yet there is no widely-used and empirically-validated instrument that captures the range of interventions provided by OSWs. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the Oncology Social Work Intervention Index (OSWii), designed to measure interventions provided by OSWs, and the results of testing the instrument. We conducted a content analysis of data collected by the Association of Oncology Social Work's Project to Assure Quality Cancer Care (APAQCC). We analyzed 3,194 responses from an open-ended question that described social work interventions following a distress screen. Five investigators coded the data in an iterative process to enhance instrument validity. The resulting instrument measuring OSWii was piloted with 38 oncology social workers across 156 individual cases. OSWs who piloted the OSWii spent a majority of time (72%) engaging in clinical interventions. The user assessment revealed that data entry was rapid, the instrument was easy to use, and the content was relevant to the cancer treatment setting. Using a standardized instrument that reflects OSWs' clinical interventions is critical for researchers to examine the impact of psychosocial interventions on patient outcomes. This index may also advance the translation of scientific findings into patient-centered psychosocial cancer care. This pilot test suggests that the OSWii is both scalable and useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: adolescent and young adult; cancer survivor; distress screening; fear of cancer recurrence; psycho-oncology; qualitative; semi-structured interview EN adolescent and young adult cancer survivor distress screening fear of cancer recurrence psycho-oncology qualitative semi-structured interview 123 126 4 01/28/21 20210101 NES 210101 BACKGROUND Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), defined as "fear, worry or concern relating to the possibility that cancer will come back or progress,"1 is emerging as a primary survivorship issue. Qualitative research interviews could be a useful method for conducting FCR research that is both theory-advancing and patient-centered, however given observed individual variability in distress ratings it will be valuable to implement distress screening protocols in such studies going forward. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: To explore the acceptability of screening for family-reported outcomes (FROs) among cancer caregivers (unpaid family members or friends who provide support to patients with cancer) and identify from their perspective the key components of a FRO screening program., Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 23 adult caregivers of people with cancer between 2020 and 2021. Interview questions focused on acceptability of FRO screening, types of FROs, timing/frequency of screening, preferred resources following screening, and communication of FROs to patients and clinicians. Participants were recruited in Canada. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis and constant comparison., Results: Almost all caregivers welcomed FRO screening in usual care and viewed it as an avenue toward obtaining more resources. Other potential benefits of FRO screening included increased self-reflection and role acknowledgment. Caregivers prioritized screening for emotional symptoms, and most preferred that the results be shared with the patient's treating team rather than their primary care provider. Caregivers did not want results to be shared with patients, instead favoring learning how best to discuss results with patients. Many spoke of a "one stop shop" containing all relevant information on caring for the patient (first) and for themselves (second). Opinions regarding timing and frequency of FRO screening differed. Periodic administration of FRO measures, with each one not exceeding 20 minutes, was deemed appropriate., Significance of Results: This study extends the concept of patient-reported outcome measures to caregivers, and findings can be used to guide the development of FRO screening programs.

Purpose: In this study, we examined distress levels and quality of life (QoL) of patients with hematologic malignancies under treatment in an acute setting. We used external- and self-assessment instruments for distress. Additionally, we investigated the relation between distress and QoL as well as whether highly distressed patients differed from less distressed patients concerning their QoL. Methods: A cross-sectional study with patients of the Medical Clinic II of the University Hospital Frankfurt was conducted. One hundred and nine patients were assessed with an expert rating scale and completed self-report questionnaires. Data were exploratively analyzed and group comparisons between patients who scored above the cut-off of the respective screening instruments and those who did not were conducted. Results: Patients with hematologic malignancies experience high levels of distress and low QoL. Especially, role and social functioning are affected. Patients suffer most from fatigue, appetite loss, and insomnia. Using established cut-offs, all screening instruments were able to differentiate between patients regarding distress and QoL. Patients scoring above the cut-off were significantly more distressed and had a lower QoL. There was a medium-to-strong correlation between distress and QoL indicators. Conclusion: Cancer-specific screening instruments seem to be able to identify treatment needs more specifically. They also allowed a better differentiation concerning QoL. The close link between distress and QoL needs to be recognized to enable a holistic approach to treatment and thereby optimize the quality of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of distress screening and referral for cancer patients. Implementation remains a notable gap for cancer centers serving disadvantaged communities. We present the implementation of a distress screening program within a Veterans Affairs hospital oncology clinic, serving a majority African American (AA) male population of low socioeconomic status (SES). Methods: The Coleman Foundation funded this program supporting a palliative care physician and psychologist to implement screening in a phased approach as follows: (1) Organizing key stakeholders, (2) educating clinical staff, (3) delivering distress screening, (4) generating documentation, and (5) implementing clinical action and referral pathways. We utilized validated measures in the "Patient Screening Questions for Supportive Care" screening tool. Results: This program was unsuccessful in screening all veterans with cancer; however, we were able to implement 3 years of longitudinal screening. In distress screens from the initial program period (n = 253), patients were primarily males (95.6%) of older age (m = 70, standard deviation = 9.45), AA (76.4%), with various cancers of advanced disease (69%). Males reported moderate psychosocial distress and elevated financial needs. For males with elevated psychosocial distress (n = 63, PHQ‐4 ≥3), 36% were previously connected with psychosocial services. Following screening, engagement increased as the majority (77%) established psychosocial care. Conclusions: This screening program had mixed success. Centralized program staff and available supportive care referrals were critical for program implementation. Screening may have increased engagement in social work/mental health services for males of low SES. Screening programs should be tailored to the needs of underserved communities with accessible housing/food subsidies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study investigated the effect of the "Screening for Distress and Referral Need" (SDRN) process (completing a screening instrument; patient-caregiver discussion about the patient's responses, regardless of distress level, and possible referral to specialized care), implemented in Dutch oncology practice on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Methods: A non-randomized time-sequential study was conducted to compare two cohorts. Cohort 1 respondents (C1) were recruited before and cohort 2 respondents (C2) after SDRN implementation in nine Dutch hospitals. Participants completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30, HADS, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-III, and the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL). Descriptive analyses and univariate tests were conducted.Results: C2 respondents (N = 422, response = 54%) had significantly lower mean scores on the practical (t = 2.3; p = 0.02), social (t = 2.3; p = 0.03), and emotional PL domains (t = 2.9; p = 0.004) compared with C1 (N = 518, response = 53%). No significant differences were found on quality of life, anxiety, depression, satisfaction with care, distress level, the spiritual and physical PL domains, or on referral wish.Conclusions: After implementation of SDRN, patients report significantly fewer psychosocial (practical, social, and emotional) problems on the DT/PL but responses on the other patient-reported outcomes were comparable. These results add to the mixed evidence on the beneficial effect of distress screening. More and better focused research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal is the property of Pappin Communications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The distress thermometer and problem list (DT&PL) is a recommended screening measure but the utility of the physical problem list (PPL) has not been evaluated in patients with metastatic lung cancer who typically have high rates of both physical and psychological symptoms. We hypothesized that the PPL will provide an accurate representation of lung cancer symptoms and be associated with concomitant distress, anxiety, depression, and worsened survival.Methods: Stage IV lung cancer patients (n = 116) reported physical symptoms from 22 PPL variables and completed the DT&PL for distress, general anxiety disorder-7 for anxiety, and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 for depression. Inferential analyses were controlled for demographic and clinical characteristics.Results: The average number of physical problems was 4.7 (SD = 3.8) while the median was 3.0. Fatigue, sleep, pain, and breathing problems were most common. Physical symptom burden was associated with nonmarried/partnered status (P = .003) and depression (P < .001) on multivariate analysis accounting for 43% of physical symptom burden variance. Greater number of physical symptoms and lower BMI were associated with worsened survival. Individual physical symptoms were most often associated with depression.Conclusion: The PPL of the DT&PL appears to have clinical utility given its associations with the most common lung cancer symptoms, depression, and worsened survival. In addition to its potential role in clinics worldwide already using the DT&PL, physical symptom burden on the DT&PL should trigger a concomitant psychological assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Distress screening using measures of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) has been introduced in China and is increasingly recognized as contributing to whole-patient care. We carried out a multi-centered cross-sectional survey of Chinese cancer inpatients to explore the symptom burden, symptom clusters, and risk factors of distress.Method: Patients were recruited from five hospitals in four provinces. The Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) was used as the screening tool. Demographic and medical information was collected. Descriptive analysis, the chi-square test, logistics regression analysis, and hierarchical clustering analysis were used.Results: Totally 1045 valid questionnaires were collected (83.6% validity ratio). Low well-being (39.4%), lack of appetite (35.4%), tiredness (32.9%), pain (21.1%), and anxiety (19.8%) were the top five symptoms. Patients in Ci County had a heavier symptom burden than patients at other sites. Depression, anxiety, nausea, drowsiness, and pain were considered pain-illness symptoms; lack of appetite, low well-being, tiredness, and shortness of breath were considered fatigue-illness symptoms. Social difficulty was a risk factor for all symptoms. A high proportion of suicide ideation (38.8%) and suicide intention (10.5%) was identified among patients with potential depression.Conclusion: The high symptom burden of Chinese cancer inpatients indicates the necessity of distress screening; well-designed screening programs such as the multidimensional DART and its acceptability in China should be further explored. Social difficulty has a universal impact on patients' well-being, and psychosocial care should be integrated into holistic symptoms management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: People affected by chronic diseases such as cancer report high levels of distress and a need for psychosocial support. It is unclear whether telephone-based services for people affected by chronic disease are a practical setting for implementing distress screening, referral protocols and rescreening to direct supportive care where it is needed. This systematic review aimed to describe the published literature regarding distress screening and supportive care referral practices in telephone-based services for people affected by chronic diseases such as cancer.Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and Scopus was conducted in February 2018. Included quantitative studies involved: patients or caregivers affected by chronic diseases including cancer and describe a health service assessing psychosocial needs or distress via telephone. Extracted data included the type of cancer or other chronic disease, sample size, screening tool, referral or rescreening protocols, and type of health service.Results: The search identified 3989 potential articles with additional searches returning 30 studies (n = 4019); fourteen were eligible for full-text review. Of the 14 studies, 13 included cancer patients. Studies were across multiple settings and identified nine distress screening tools in use.Conclusion: The reviewed studies indicate that validated distress-screening tools are being used via telephone to identify distress, particularly in relation to cancer. Screening-driven supportive care referrals are also taking place in telephone-based services. However, not all services use an established referral protocol. Ongoing rescreening of callers' distress is also limited despite it being an important recommendation from psycho-oncology guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Psychosocial distress is common in cancer patients and survivors and encompasses a broad range of concerns and psychological symptoms. The aim of the current study was to identify subgroups of respondents who experience a specific constellation of distress symptoms.Methods: This study uses data from a large data base (n = 21 680) of cancer patients from diverse settings who provided data in the Questionnaire on Distress in Cancer Patients-Short Form (QSC-R10). Cluster analysis was applied to identify subgroups with a distinct constellation of distress symptoms.Results: The results showed five distinct clusters: minimally distressed patients (46.6% of the sample), highly distressed patients (12.7%), mainly physically distressed patients (15.2%), mainly psychologically distressed patients (15.6%), and mainly socially distressed patients (9.9%). These groups differed with regard to age, sex, cancer site, treatment setting, and disease progression.Conclusion: The results revealed large heterogeneity in the experience of distress. Distress clusters were associated with socio-demographic and clinical variables. These associations might aid a clinician to tailor interventions and to address specific types of distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate whether regular screening with the distress thermometer (DT) by a nurse improved global quality of life (QOL) of patients with breast cancer (BC) treated with curative intent.Methods: BC patients were randomized between regular screening for distress with a nurse-led DT intervention (NDTI) and usual care (UC). Both groups filled out questionnaires at baseline, after each received treatment modality and at follow-up visits up to 2 years. At these points, the intervention group received also the NDTI. The primary outcome was the global QOL of the EORTC QLQ C30 at 2 years after the end of treatment. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), generalized least squares, and interaction analyses.Results: Of 194 randomized patients, 153 filled out the questionnaires up to 2 years after treatment. There was no significant difference between NDTI and UC in global QOL 2 years after the end of treatment (mean diff. = -1∙273, P = .610; 95% CI [-6.195; 3.649]). Subgroup analysis of patients who received multimodality treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, n = 66) showed a significant between-group difference in global QOL over time (mean diff. = -10, P < .001; 95% CI [-14.835; -5.167]) together with other secondary outcome measures in favor of the NDTI.Conclusion: NDTI did not lead to a significant improvement in global QOL 2 years after the end of treatment for patients with BC. However, the findings indicate that BC patients who received multimodality treatment may benefit from NDTI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychosocial screening has been proposed as a core standard of care in pediatric oncology. However, there has been limited application of this standard thus far. Understanding healthcare provider (HCP) attitudes towards psychosocial screening is an important element towards furthering implementation initiatives of standard screening practices in pediatric oncology.Objective: To compare HCP perceptions of the utility of a psychosocial risk summary by discipline (oncologist, nurse, social worker), risk level (Universal, Targeted, Clinical) derived from the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), and time (shortly after a child's diagnosis [T1] and 6 months later [T2]).Method: All participating HCPs (oncologists, nurses, social workers) were asked to rate how useful they found the psychosocial risk summary using a visual analogue scale (VAS).Results: The psychosocial risk summary was perceived as equally useful across providers (oncologists, nurses, social workers) and PAT risk levels at T1. At T2, the psychosocial risk summary was perceived as more useful by oncologists and nurses than social workers, and summaries indicating elevated risk were perceived as more useful than those indicating low risk. Overall, healthcare providers reported greater utility of psychosocial risk summary near diagnosis compared with 6 months later, largely driven by lower utility ratings reported by social workers at T2.Conclusion: Understanding perceived utility and factors affecting perceived utility is a key component to designing effective implementation strategies for systematic psychosocial screening. Active engagement of HCPs in the screening process is critical in improving implementation of psychosocial screening throughout pediatric cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To develop and validate the Distress Screening Tool (DST) for child and adolescent cancer survivors.Methods: In part 1, items of the DST were generated through literature search and group interviews. Initially, the DST was tested on pediatric cancer survivors and their caregivers. In part 2, the modified version of the DST was retested with a different set of participants. Lastly, the psychometric properties and cutoff scores of the DST were evaluated on a separate set of survivors and caregivers.Results: In part 1, six items of the DST self- and caregiver-report versions were generated. The initial 6 DST items of both versions showed acceptable internal consistency, but low inter-item correlation. Following the item modification, both versions of the DST showed improved inter-item correlation. In part 2, the modified DST had acceptable internal consistency and convergent validity, with acceptable psychometric properties. Cutoff scores were also generated.Conclusions: The DST could be a useful tool for pediatric cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many distressed cancer patients do not want or, finally, do not use psychological support. This study aimed at identifying factors associated with the decline of psychological support during hospital stay. Methods: This cross‐sectional study included inpatients with different cancer diagnoses. Distress was assessed using the short form of the Questionnaire on Stress in Cancer Patients‐Revised (QSC‐R10) and the Distress Thermometer (DT). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with decline. Results: Of 925 patients, 71.6% (n = 662) declined psychological support. Male sex (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.69‐3.80), low psychosocial distress (OR = 3.76, CI = 2.50‐5.67), not feeling depressed (OR = 1.93, CI = 1.24‐2.99), perceived overload (OR = 3.37, CI = 2.19‐5.20), no previous psychological treatment (OR = 1.88, CI = 1.25‐2.83), and feeling well informed about psychological support (OR = 1.66, CI = 1.11‐2.46) were associated with decline. Among the patients who indicated clinical distress (46.2%), 53.9% declined psychological support. Male sex (OR = 2.96, CI = 1.71‐5.12), not feeling depressed (OR = 1.87, CI = 1.12‐3.14), perceived overload (OR = 5.37, CI = 3.07‐9.37), agreeableness (OR = 0.70, CI = 0.51‐0.95), and feeling well informed about psychological support (OR = 1.81, CI = 1.07‐3.07) were uniquely associated with decline in this subgroup. Conclusions: Decline of psychological support is primarily due to psychological factors. Feeling well informed about support emerged as a relevant factor associated with decline. Thus, design of informational material and education about available psychological services seem crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Little consideration is given to the referral and uptake of available supportive services after distress screening. However, identifying the reasons for accepting or refusing help is mandatory for implementing a screening policy. The present study explored the practical usefulness of and potential barriers to the application of distress management. Methods: 406 cancer patients were consecutively selected and asked to complete the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem Check List (PL). All patients with a DT score ≥6 were invited for a post-DT telephone interview with a trained psychologist. Results: The 112 patients who refused to take part were more often older, retired, at a more advanced stage of illness, and with no previous experience of psychological intervention with respect to those who accepted. Of the 78 patients with a score ≥6 who were referred to the Psycho-Oncology Service, 65.4% accepted the telephone interview. Twenty-two patients rejected the initial invitation immediately for various reasons including logistic difficulties, physical problems, and feeling embarrassed about opening up to a psychologist. Conclusions: Our study confirms that screening per sé is insufficient to deal with the problem of distress and that more emphasis should be placed on implementing referral and treatment.

Purpose: Identifying and assessing psychosocial distress with an appropriate screening instrument is essential when caring for cancer patients. Since 2012, the distress thermometer (DT) has been used by nurses for all cancer inpatients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich. We wanted to identify nurses' adherence to the screening protocol, differences between screened and not screened patients and the relationship between screening rate and productivity.Methods: This retrospective descriptive study used screening and referral data as well as socioeconomic and disease-related data of inpatients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich. This was collected from the electronic patient documentation system. Additionally, data showing the productivity of all wards was used. All data were analyzed descriptive.Results: Since 2012, 40.6% (4541) of the 11,184 patients have been screened. The screening rate was initially significantly lower but settled at 40% after 2 years. There was a higher screening rate among Swiss, married, male, and emergency patients and patients with hematology diseases, brain tumors, or head and neck cancer (p < 0.001). Every fourth patient with a moderate to severe distress level requested referral to a psychosocial service. Significantly more screened patients were referred to the social service (44.7%) than to the psycho-oncology service (9.4%). Only 22.9% of all referrals were made on the day of screening or a day later. There were only two wards of 15 with a significant relationship between productivity and screening rate.Conclusions: Screening is useful in recognizing distress among patients, but screening practice needs to be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]