Back to Search Start Over

Use of psycho‐oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis.

Authors :
Breidenbach, Clara
Roth, Rebecca
Ansmann, Lena
Wesselmann, Simone
Dieng, Sebastian
Carl, Ernst‐Günther
Feick, Günter
Oesterle, Alisa
Bach, Peter
Beyer, Burkhard
Borowitz, Rainer
Erdmann, Jörg
Kunath, Frank
Oostdam, Simba‐Joshua
Tsaur, Igor
Zengerling, Friedemann
Kowalski, Christoph
Source :
Cancer Medicine. Jun2020, Vol. 9 Issue 11, p3680-3690. 11p.
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Background: Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho‐oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs). Methods: Center‐reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted. Results: Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients' age (OR = 0.98; 95%‐CI = 0.96‐0.99; P <.001), number of comorbidities (1‐2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%‐CI = 1.00‐1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high‐risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%‐CI = 1.14‐1.74; P <.001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%‐CI = 0.10‐0.34; P <.001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%‐CI = 0.02‐0.55; P =.009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%‐CI = 0.03‐0.10; P <.001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%‐CI = 0.02‐0.15; P <.001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high‐risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%‐CI = 1.05‐1.62; P =.02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%‐CI = 0.01‐0.65; P =.02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics. Conclusions: Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects – for example, less need following radiotherapy – or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20457634
Volume :
9
Issue :
11
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Cancer Medicine
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
143703803
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2999