Back to Search Start Over

Reasons for low uptake of a psychological intervention offered to cancer survivors with elevated depressive symptoms

Authors :
Robert J. van Ginkel
Robbert Sanderman
Thera P. Links
Loek J. van der Donk
Joke Fleer
Veronique E.M. Mul
Jan L. N. Roodenburg
Peter C. Baas
Maya J. Schroevers
Henriette J. G. Arts
Christiaan Hoff
K. Annika Tovote
Johanna Kluin-Nelemans
Psychology, Health & Technology
Damage and Repair in Cancer Development and Cancer Treatment (DARE)
Guided Treatment in Optimal Selected Cancer Patients (GUTS)
Targeted Gynaecologic Oncology (TARGON)
Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology
Lifelong Learning, Education & Assessment Research Network (LEARN)
Source :
Psycho-Oncology, Psycho-oncology, 28(4), 830-838. Wiley
Publication Year :
2019
Publisher :
John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2019.

Abstract

Objective In line with screening guidelines, cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms (as part of standard care), with those reporting elevated levels of symptoms offered psychological care as part of a trial. Because of the low uptake, no conclusions could be drawn about the interventions' efficacy. Given the trial set‐up (following screening guidelines and strict methodological quality criteria), we believe that this observational study reporting the flow of participation, reasons for and characteristics associated with nonparticipation, adds to the debate about the feasibility and efficiency of screening guidelines. Methods Two thousand six hundred eight medium‐ to long‐term cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9). Those with moderate depressive symptoms (PHQ‐9 ≥ 10) were contacted and informed about the trial. Patient flow and reasons for nonparticipation were carefully monitored. Results One thousand thirty seven survivors (74.3%) returned the questionnaire, with 147 (7.6%) reporting moderate depressive symptoms. Of this group, 49 survivors (33.3%) were ineligible, including 26 survivors (17.7%) already receiving treatment and another 44 survivors (30.0%) reporting no need for treatment. Only 25 survivors (1.0%) participated in the trial. Conclusion Of the approached survivors for screening, only 1% was eligible and interested in receiving psychological care as part of our trial. Four reasons for nonparticipation were: nonresponse to screening, low levels of depressive symptoms, no need, or already receiving care. Our findings question whether to spend the limited resources in psycho‐oncological care on following screening guidelines and the efficiency of using consecutive screening for trial recruitment in cancer survivors.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
10991611 and 10579249
Volume :
28
Issue :
4
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Psycho-Oncology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....34f9a495ad03922708112ead8dd1117f