Barry D. Bultz

Cancer distress screening: Needs, models, and methods

The idea of screening for distress in oncology populations is not new. Many recommendations have been made regarding the need for routine screening, and methods have been suggested for accomplishing this. However, a synthesis of this body of research is not readily available. This paper summarizes the literature documenting the levels of distress commonly found in cancer patients, followed by discussion of recommended standards for routine distress screening, and a summary of various programs that have attempted to establish clinical screening programs. The computerized quality of life (QL) screening literature is also briefly reviewed as potentially instructive. This review is followed by a theoretical and psychometric assessment of the various screening instruments and screening models that have been suggested in the literature or used clinically and a brief assessment of possible economic costs of psychosocial screening, ending with concrete suggestions for methods and models that could be widely adopted by psychosocial oncology programs.

Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients.

The purpose of this paper was to determine if providing patient specific Quality of Life (QL) information to clinic staff before a clinic appointment improved patient care in a lung cancer outpatient clinic. Patients were sequentially assigned to either a usual care control group or the experimental group, which completed a computerized version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ‐C30 questionnaire in order to provide the clinic staff with QL information prior to the clinic appointment. The control group completed the EORTC QLQ‐C30 paper version after the clinic appointment. Outcome measures were patient satisfaction, the degree to which issues identified on the QL questionnaire were addressed in the appointment, and a chart audit, which measured charting of QL issues and actions taken by the clincian relating to QL. In the experimental group, more QL issues identified by the patient on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 were addressed during the clinic appointment than in the control group. As well, marginally more categories were charted and a trend towards more actions being taken was seen in the experimental group. Patients reported being equally and highly satisfied with the treatment in both groups. The clinical implication is that the computerized administration of the EORTC QLQ‐C30 questionnaire and providing staff with a report highlighting patient‐specific QL deficits is a simple, time‐effective and acceptable means of improving patient–provider communication in a busy outpatient clinic. Large trials studying its effectiveness in different patient populations and regions would further elucidate the nature of this effect and potentially improve the overall quality of care that patients receive.

Screening for Distress in Lung and Breast Cancer Outpatients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE Distress has been recognized as the sixth vital sign in cancer care and several guidelines recommend routine screening. Despite this, screening for distress is rarely conducted and infrequently evaluated. METHODS A program of routine online screening for distress was implemented for new patients with breast and lung cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) minimal screening: the distress thermometer (DT) only plus usual care; (2) full screening: DT, problem checklist, Psychological Screen for Cancer part C measuring anxiety and depression, a personalized report summarizing concerns and the report on the medical file; or (3) triage: full screening plus optional personalized phone triage with referral to resources. Patients in all conditions received an information packet and were reassessed 3 months later with the full screening battery. RESULTS Five hundred eighty-five patients with breast cancer and 549 patients with lung cancer were assessed at baseline (89% of all patients), and 75.5% retained for follow-up. High prevalence of baseline distress was found across patients. Twenty percent fewer patients with lung cancer in triage continued to have high distress at follow-up compared to those in the other two groups, and patients with breast cancer in the full screening and triage conditions showed lower distress at follow-up than those in minimal screening. The best predictor of decreased anxiety and depression in full screening and triage conditions was receiving a referral to psychosocial services. CONCLUSION Routine online screening is feasible in a large cancer center and may help to reduce future distress levels, particularly when coupled with uptake of appropriate resources.

A randomized controlled trial of a brief psychoeducational support group for partners of early stage breast cancer patients.

Partners of breast cancer patients are relied upon for support at a time when their own coping abilities are taxed by the challenge of cancer, yet few studies have investigated psychosocial interventions that include or target the patients ‘significant other’. Of the 118 consecutive patients approached, 36 patients and their partners participated in a randomized controlled trial of a brief psychoeducational group program for partners only. Psychometric instruments (including the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the Index of Marital Satisfaction (IMS) and DUKE‐UNC Functional Social Support Scale (FSSS)) were administered pre‐test, post‐test and at 3 months follow‐up. The Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (MAC) was also completed by patients. Three months after the intervention, partners had less mood disturbance than did controls. Patients whose partners received the intervention reported less mood disturbance, greater confidant support (CS) and greater marital satisfaction. Copyright

Benefits of psychosocial oncology care: Improved quality of life and medical cost offset

The burden of cancer in the worldwide context continues to grow, with an increasing number of new cases and deaths each year. A significant proportion of cancer patients at all stages of the disease trajectory will suffer social, emotional and psychological distress as a result of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Psychosocial interventions have proven efficacious for helping patients and families confront the many issues that arise during this difficult time. This paper reviews the literature detailing the extent of distress in patients, the staffing needed to treat such levels of distress, and the efficacy of psychosocial treatments for cancer patients. This is followed by a summary of the literature on medical cost offset in mental health, other medical populations, and in cancer patients, which supports the notion that psychosocial interventions are not only effective, but also economical. Conclusions support taking a whole-person approach, as advocated by a growing number of health care professionals, which would not only help to treat the emotional and social aspects of living with cancer, but also provide considerable long-term cost savings to overburdened health-care systems.

Implementing screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: a Canadian strategy for changing practice†

Objective: Distress is prevalent among cancer patients at all stages of illness and has been endorsed as the 6th Vital Sign in cancer care. Despite its prevalence, and calls to be monitored, few cancer programs are Screening for Distress in a standardized manner. In this paper, the implementation strategy employed in Canada to change practice by integrating Screening for Distress in routine care is described.

Mind-body interventions in oncology.

Opinion statementA number of mind–body interventions have been studied for use with cancer patients, primarily measuring outcomes relating to pain control, anxiety reduction, and enhancing quality of life. This chapter defines the scope and characteristics of mind–body interventions, followed by a selective review of research indicating their appropriate use or cautions in cancer care. Mind–body interventions included are hypnosis, imagery/relaxation, meditation, yoga, and creative therapies. Current evidence supports the efficacy of hypnosis and imagery/relaxation for control of pain and anxiety during cancer treatments. Meditation is supported for reductions in stress and improvements in mood, quality of life, and sleep problems. There is a growing body of support for yoga from randomized controlled trials for improving quality of life, sleep, and mood. Creative therapies such as visual arts, dance, and music may help cancer patients express their feelings and cope with the demands of a cancer experience. Research on biological marker effects of mind–body therapies remains inconclusive. Study of mind–body interventions generally requires additional, methodologically rigorous investigation of how various interventions best assist patients during various phases of cancer survivorship, although a major benefit of these therapies lies in the opportunity for patients to self-select them.

Impact of Providing Audiotapes of Primary Adjuvant Treatment Consultations to Women With Breast Cancer: A Multisite, Randomized, Controlled Trial

PURPOSE Women with breast cancer were provided with an audiotape of their primary adjuvant treatment consultation, and the following patient outcomes were measured at 12 weeks postconsultation: perceived degree of information provision, audiotape satisfaction and use, communication satisfaction with oncologist, mood state, and cancer-specific quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS Participants included 628 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and 40 oncologists from six cancer centers in Canada. The patients were block randomized to one of four consultation groups: standard care control, not audiotaped; audiotaped, no audiotape given; audiotaped, patient given audiotape; and audiotaped, patient offered choice of receiving audiotape or not. RESULTS Patients receiving the consultation audiotape had significantly better recall of having discussed side effects of treatment than patients who did not receive the audiotape. Audiotape benefit was not significantly related to patient satisfaction with communication, mood state, or quality of life at 12 weeks postconsultation, and was not significantly affected by choice of receiving the audiotape. Patients rated the audiotape intervention positively, with an average score of 83.9 of 100. CONCLUSION Audiotape provision benefits patients by facilitating their perception of being informed about treatment side effects, but does not significantly influence patient satisfaction with communication, mood state, or quality of life.

Predictors of distress and quality of life in patients undergoing cancer therapy: impact of treatment type and decisional role.

Purpose: The purpose of this secondary investigation was to examine the impact of the type of treatment received and the perceived role in treatment decision making in predicting distress and cancer‐specific quality of life in patients newly diagnosed with breast or prostate cancer.

Online screening for distress, the 6th vital sign, in newly diagnosed oncology outpatients: randomised controlled trial of computerised vs personalised triage

Background:This randomised controlled trial examined the impact of screening for distress followed by two different triage methods on clinically relevant outcomes over a 12-month period.Methods:Newly diagnosed patients attending a large tertiary cancer centre were randomised to one of the two conditions: (1) screening with computerised triage or (2) screening with personalised triage, both following standardised clinical triage algorithms. Patients completed the Distress Thermometer, Pain and Fatigue Thermometers, the Psychological Screen for Cancer (PSSCAN) Part C and questions on resource utilisation at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months.Results:In all, 3133 patients provided baseline data (67% of new patients); with 1709 (54.5%) retained at 12 months (15.4% deceased). Mixed effects models revealed that both groups experienced significant decreases in distress, anxiety, depression, pain and fatigue over time. People receiving personalised triage and people reporting higher symptom burden were more likely to access services, which was subsequently related to greater decreases in distress, anxiety and depression. Women may benefit more from personalised triage, whereas men may benefit more from a computerised triage model.Conclusion:Screening for distress is a viable intervention that has the potential to decrease symptom burden up to 12 months post diagnosis. The best model of screening may be to incorporate personalised triage for patients indicating high levels of depression and anxiety while providing computerised triage for others.