4.6 Article

Does screening for distress efficiently uncover meetable unmet needs in cancer patients?

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 655-663

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1939

关键词

cancer; oncology; distress; screening; psychosocial needs

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [RUG-2007-3805]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We evaluated screening for distress in terms of its ability to uncover unmet need for psychosocial services in cancer patients. Correlates of distress, need for services and met and unmet need for services were investigated. Methods: Immediately after cancer treatment (T1) and 2 months later (T2), 302 patients completed the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and a single question assessing the need for services. All distressed patients (HSCL-25 >= 39) and non-distressed patients endorsing a need for services were then called (n=99) to assess their need. Results: Thirty-seven percent (T1) and 31% (T2) of patients were distressed and 31% (T1) and 18% (T2) expressed the need for services. Both time points showed higher distress in younger patients and females and lower distress in prostate cancer and patients treated by radiotherapy only. Less need for services was found in prostate cancer (T1), greater need was related to being single (T1) and younger (T2). Distress and need for services were positively related (p<0.001). The HSCL-25 showed modest sensitivity (T1: 0.59, T2: 0.65) and specificity (T1: 0.75, T2: 0.78) as an indicator of need for services. Interviews at T2 revealed that 51% of distressed patients needed no psychosocial services and 25% were already receiving services. At T2, regardless of distress level, 10% of all screened patients reported an unmet need for psychosocial services. Conclusions: Depending on the clinical context, screening might be more efficient if it assessed the unmet need for services rather than distress. More attention should be concentrated on directing patients with meetable unmet needs to available services. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据