4.6 Article

Utilization of professional psychological care in a large German sample of cancer patients

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 537-543

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.4197

关键词

cancer; emotional distress; mental disorder; oncology; psychological care; utilization

资金

  1. German Cancer Aid within the psychosocial oncology funding priority program [107465]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveAlthough one-third of cancer patients are perceived to have a need for psychological support based on the percentage of mental disorders, little is known about the actual utilization of psychological care in cancer. We aimed to assess cancer patients' reported use of psychological care and its correlates in a large, representative sample. MethodsIn a multicenter, cross-sectional study in Germany, 4020 cancer patients (mean age 58years, 51% women) were evaluated. We obtained self-reports of use of psychotherapy and psychological counseling. We measured distress with the Distress Thermometer, symptoms of depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire, anxiety with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, and social support with the Illness-specific Social Support Scale. In a subsample of 2141, we evaluated the presence of a mental disorder using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. ResultsIn total, 28.9% (95% confidence interval 27.4%-30.4%) reported having used psychotherapy or psychological counseling or both because of distress due to cancer. Independent correlates of utilization included age (odds ratio [OR]=0.97 per year], sex (male, OR=0.55), social support (OR=0.96), symptoms of depression (OR=1.04) and anxiety (OR=1.08), the diagnosis of a mental disorder (OR=1.68), and a positive attitude toward psychosocial support (OR=1.27). Less than half of those currently diagnosed with a mental disorder reported having taken up psychological support offers. ConclusionSpecial efforts should be made to reach populations that report low utilization of psychological care in spite of having a need for support.

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