Associations of practical, emotional, and physical problems with psychosocial distress among cancer patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Mark William Flanagan ◽  
Heather H. Goltz ◽  
John W. Henson ◽  
Matthew Lee Smith
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Physical Problems

Identifying psychosocial distress in cancer patients in a community center.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23193-e23193
Author(s):  
Deepali Pandey ◽  
Masood Pasha Syed ◽  
Shekhar Patil ◽  
Mohamed Hassan ◽  
Matthew Frederick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Cancer Site ◽  
Primary Cancer ◽  
Physical Problems ◽  
Distress Level ◽  
Distress Score ◽  
High Distress ◽  
Primary Cancer Site ◽  
Cancer Types

e23193 Background: Psychosocial distress is common in cancer patients. It can cause decreased treatment adherence, lesser treatment satisfaction, low quality of life, and lower survival rate. Distress management is critical to improving cancer survivorship. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT) is widely used to assess psychosocial problems in cancer patients in five categories - practical, family, emotional, spiritual and physical problems. The aim of our study is to identify the distress pattern in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in our center using DT adapted from the NCCN. Methods: This is a retrospective study. Total 192 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were included, who were screened with DT at initial visit. Patients were asked to rate their level of distress from 0-10 on DT and select categories. We collected data on distress score, selected categories, age, gender, and primary cancer site. Distress score < 4 were defined as low and = > 4 as high. Our objective was to evaluate distress categories and if distress level (high vs low) is dependent on age ( < 65 vs = > 65), gender, and primary cancer site (top 7 cancer types in our clinic by volume). Statistical test used - Chi-square. Results: Median age - 66.5 years (range: 29-96); Gender: Male/Female - 44.3%/55.7%. Median distress score - 3. Low distress was reported by 55.2% and high distress by 44.8%. Cancer types: Breast (29.7%); Lung (17.7%); Prostate (10.9%); Hematological malignancies (7.3%); Lymphoma (6.7%); Urothelial (6.7%); Head and Neck (6.2%); Others (13.4%). Overall, physical problems were the most common (63.5%) followed by emotional (56.3%), practical and family (32.3%), and spiritual (2.1%). Among patients with high distress, 84.9% reported emotional problems, while 83.7% reported physical problems. Distress level was not dependent on age, gender and primary cancer site. Conclusions: Emotional and physical problems are the most common problems among our study population with high distress level which requires further interventions/referrals. Identifying psychosocial needs of cancer patients with DT can help optimize their care.

scholarly journals From Distress Screening to Uptake: An Italian Multicenter Study of Cancer Patients

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 3761
Author(s):  
Elena Meggiolaro ◽  
Silvia De Padova ◽  
Federica Ruffilli ◽  
Tatiana Bertelli ◽  
Marina Bragagni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Telephone Interview ◽  
Psychological Intervention ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Potential Barriers ◽  
Physical Problems ◽  
Practical Usefulness ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Opening Up

Introduction: Little consideration is given to the referral and uptake of available supportive services after distress screening. However, identifying the reasons for accepting or refusing help is mandatory for implementing a screening policy. The present study explored the practical usefulness of and potential barriers to the application of distress management. Methods: 406 cancer patients were consecutively selected and asked to complete the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem Check List (PL). All patients with a DT score ≥6 were invited for a post-DT telephone interview with a trained psychologist. Results: The 112 patients who refused to take part were more often older, retired, at a more advanced stage of illness, and with no previous experience of psychological intervention with respect to those who accepted. Of the 78 patients with a score ≥6 who were referred to the Psycho-Oncology Service, 65.4% accepted the telephone interview. Twenty-two patients rejected the initial invitation immediately for various reasons including logistic difficulties, physical problems, and feeling embarrassed about opening up to a psychologist. Conclusions: Our study confirms that screening per sé is insufficient to deal with the problem of distress and that more emphasis should be placed on implementing referral and treatment.

scholarly journals PERCEPTION OF CANCER PATIENTS ON CHEMOTHERAPY SIDE EFFECTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-76
Author(s):  
Rani Lisa Indra ◽  
Bayu Saputra
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Fear Of Death ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Physical Problems ◽  
Chemotherapy Side Effects ◽  
Skin Discoloration ◽  
Loss Of Appetite

Chemotherapy causes various side effects that can affect the patient's physical or non-physical condition. Patients' perceptions or ratings of these side effects vary. This study aimed to identify cancer patients' perceptions of the side effects of chemotherapy they are undergoing. The descriptive study was conducted on 84 samples, namely cancer patients aged 20 years who had undergone chemotherapy at least once before. Data collection using a questionnaire that has been tested for validity and reliability. Data analysis was carried out descriptively with frequency distribution. The results showed that the perception of the physical side effects of chemotherapy that was considered very disturbing by the patient (severe symptoms) was nausea (59.5%), feeling of weakness (36.9%), hair loss (35.7%), vomiting. (29.8%), loss of appetite (28.6%). %), weight loss (27.4%), insomnia and skin discoloration (19% each), headache (16.7%) and fever (15.5%). When the perception of non-physical side effects was fear of death, affecting work/household duties and feeling fear (15.5% each), feeling anxious about my life, and the presence of family members I have to take care (14.3% each). The most disturbing side effects of chemotherapy are physical problems. The health service is expected to increase interventions to minimize the side effects of chemotherapy. 

421 PSYCHOSOCIAL DISTRESS IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS: DOES FAMILY HISTORY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 146
Author(s):  
K. Herkommer ◽  
A. Dinkel ◽  
M. Kornmayer ◽  
P. Herschbach ◽  
J.E. Gschwend
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Family History ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Psychosocial Distress

Ethical considerations in screening head and neck cancer patients for psychosocial distress

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 617-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M. Deleemans ◽  
Kerry Mothersill ◽  
Barry D. Bultz ◽  
Fiona Schulte
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Ethical Considerations

Psychosocial distress and the need for supportive counselling in breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

1999 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. S280
Author(s):  
S. Maislinger ◽  
G. Schiessling ◽  
E. Steixner ◽  
A. DeVries ◽  
P. Lukas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Supportive Counselling

The Commission on Cancer Psychosocial Distress Screening Standard: The first year in review.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 198-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina S. Miller ◽  
Ryan M. McCabe ◽  
Allison Knutson
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Cancer Program

198 Background: In response to recommendations from the 2007 Institute of Medicine report, Cancer Care for the Whole Patient, the American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer developed a set of Continuum of Care standards, including a patient-centered standard regarding the delivery of psychosocial distress screening to all cancer patients. According to Cancer Program Standards 2012: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care, the accredited cancer program must implement a process to integrate and monitor on-site psychosocial distress screening and referral for the provision of psychosocial care. Patients experience psychological, social, financial, and behavioral issues that can interfere with their treatment plan and adversely affect outcomes. Screening processes result in the identification of distressed cancer patients and assessment and referral pathways to ensure appropriate psychosocial care provision can be obtained. The standard was established in 2012 with a 2015 implementation period allowing programs time to develop a screening, assessment, and referral process tailored to their patient population. Methods: Programs submit documentation to describe their process for delivery of care through an electronic activity report. Documentation of this standard includes the timing for delivery of the psychosocial distress screening tool; methodology; the specific tools selected with preference to validated and reliable screening tools; and a process for assessment, referral and documentation. This presentation will summarize the program submissions for 2015 and include an analysis of the details of the standard compliance as reported by accredited programs. Results: This analysis will include responses from all Commission on Cancer accredited programs reporting on this standard. The analysis will provide information about the trends in the timing, methods, and tools used by programs implementing a psychosocial distress screening process. Conclusions: This analysis will inform future decisions about standardization of a screening process and the feasibility of pooling data across centers.

Psychosocial distress screening in cancer care.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 187-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Mullai
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Trigger Point ◽  
Emotional Experience ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Medical Visit ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Distress Level

187 Background: Distress is a multifactorial, emotional experience that may interfere with patients’ ability to cope with cancer and its treatment. Recognizing and managing distress may benefit patients. The Commission on Cancer requires implementation of Standard 3.2, Psychosocial Distress Screening in 2015 and integrating distress intervention in cancer care. This study evaluates patients’ perception on benefits in this regard. Methods: Patients were screened at least once at a pivotal medical visit using a questionnaire that included various aspects of stress. NCCN’s Psychosocial Distress Screening Tool was used to measure seriousness of distress. Patients marked their distress level on a scale of 1 to 10. A threshold of 5 was set as a trigger point to start addressing distress. Results: Answers from 311 cancer patients (male 61%; female 39%) were evaluated since January 2015. A majority of patients had breast cancer (29%), followed by lung (18%), GI (18%), and hematological (12%) malignancies. The mean distress score was 3.72 (male 3.14; female 3.97). 131 patients had a score above five. Age group, 40-49 years had a higher distress (4.79) compared to others. Esophageal cancer (1%) had the highest mean score 7.33 followed by head & neck cancer (4%) with 5.67. In most patients, anxiety about cancer and its treatment was the cause of distress. However, they did not want any additional psychosocial intervention except for talking to their oncologist and primary physician. The distress of some patients was family related and they were unsure of the help needed. Two patients refused screening stating the questions were intrusive. Conclusions: Coordinated psychosocial care may benefit cancer patients with significant distress. NCCN tool helps to assess the severity of patients’ distress and to determine the need for intervention. The results (mean score of 3.72) suggest most cancer patients need no major intervention or special psychosocial counseling other than discussing with their physician and family, which is done routinely in most oncology practices. However, when stress is expressed, this tool does help the treating physicians to determine the specific area and degree of stress, to focus on the type of help needed for the patient, and to channel resources appropriately.

Assessing hematologic ratios as biomarkers for psychosocial distress.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 699-699
Author(s):  
Abigail Fong ◽  
Kelly Lafaro ◽  
Arthur X Li ◽  
Laleh Golkar Melstrom ◽  
Jenny Rodriguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
English Speaking

699 Background: Psychosocial distress is common among cancer patients and has been shown to have deleterious effects on a patient’s quality of life, treatment, and outcomes. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet-monocyte ratio (PMR) have been associated with poor outcomes in some cancers. Therefore we hypothesized that these ratios may be correlated to distress. This study looked at request for social work follow up as a surrogate marker for distress and investigated relationships between these ratios and markers of patient distress. Methods: A validated 48 item electronic distress screen was administered to patients in the medical and surgical oncology clinics of a large cancer center from 2009-2015. Patient requests for social work follow up were noted and patient charts reviewed for relevant labs and history. Patient demographics, NLR, LMR, PMR were reviewed. Chi-squared tests and univariate and multivariate regressions were performed to compare groups and relationships of variables and outcomes. Results: 43% of patients surveyed requested social work follow up. Of those, 75% received follow up, at a mean of 8 days. Non-Caucasian patients were more likely to request social work follow up (p = 0.03). Non-English speaking patients (p = 0.06) and those who saw medical oncologists trended towards significant desire for social work follow up. There was no significant correlation between NLR, PMR, LMR and desire to see a social worker. On multivariate analysis, patients with metastatic disease were less likely to want social work follow up (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.9, P = 0.02). Conclusions: In this study, non-white, non-English speaking patients, and those seeing medical oncologists were more likely to request social work follow up. We found no significant correlations between NLR, PMR, LMR and request for social work follow up. This suggests that desire for social work follow up is not a good correlate for physiologic distress in cancer patients. Further work is ongoing to provide better insight into determinants of psychosocial and physiologic stress in this patient population along with relevance of hematologic ratios.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document