ObjectiveDistress screening programs aim to ensure appropriate psychooncological support for cancer patients, but many eligible patients do not use these services. To improve distress management, we need to better understand patients' supportive care needs. In this paper, we report the first key finding from a longitudinal study that focused on patients' intentions to use psychooncological support and its association with distress and uptake of the psychooncology service.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational study in an Oncology Outpatient Clinic and assessed distress, intention to use psychooncological support, and uptake of the psychooncology service by using the Distress Thermometer, a semistructured interview, and hospital records. We analyzed data with a mixed‐methods approach.ResultsOf 333 patients (mean age 61 years; 55% male; 54% Distress Thermometer ≥ 5), 25% intended to use the psychooncology service (yes), 33% were ambivalent (maybe), and 42% reported no intention (no). Overall, 23% had attended the psychooncology service 4 months later. Ambivalent patients reported higher distress than patients with no intention (odds ratio = 1.18, 95% confidence interval [1.06‐1.32]) but showed significantly lower uptake behavior than patients with an intention (odds ratio = 14.04, 95% confidence interval [6.74‐29.24]). Qualitative analyses revealed that ambivalent patients (maybe) emphasized fears and uncertainties, while patients with clear intentions (yes/no) emphasized knowledge, attitudes, and coping concepts.ConclusionsWe identified a vulnerable group of ambivalent patients with high distress levels and low uptake behavior. To optimize distress screening programs, we suggest addressing and discussing patients' supportive care needs in routine clinical practice.

Objective: Highly distressed cancer patients often do not use psycho-oncological services (POS). Research on predictors of POS uptake has mainly focused on patient-related variables and less on communication variables, so we examined the link between patient-oncologist communication (ie, talking about psychosocial distress, providing detailed information, and recommending POS) and POS uptake. Methods:We conducted a prospective, observational study in an Oncology Outpatient Clinic in Switzerland. Predictors (ie, patient-related variables and patient's reports of the patient-oncologist communication) were assessed via semistructured interviews, and information on outpatient POS uptake was assessed after 4 months.For statistical analysis, a multivariate logistic regression was performed.Results: Of 333 participants (mean age 61 years; 55% male; 54% distress thermometer ≥5), 77 (23%) had used POS during a 4-month period. Patients who reported an oncologist-recommended POS (odds ratio [OR] = 6.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.14-12.85) and those who were not sure if they had received a recommendation (OR = 4.64, 95% CI = 1.83-11.97) were more likely to attend POS than those who reported receiving no recommendation. Talking about psychosocial distress (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.38-1.46) and providing detailed information about POS did not predict POS uptake (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.46-2.38). Conclusions:Oncologists' expert recommendations to attend POS were strongly associated with patients' uptake of POS. The central role played by oncologists should be accounted for in stepped psycho-oncological care when POS referral pathways are defined.

No abstract