Signalising psychosocial problems in cancer care

Kruijver, I.P.M.; Garssen, Bart; Visser, Adriaan; Kuiper, Anouk

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.001

Cited by 35 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Four practice guidelines [11,17,[19][20][21]26], eight systematic reviews [6,10,12,14,15,22,27,29], and nine randomized trials [3-5, 7-9, 25, 28, 30] were identified. Because two comprehensive guidelines on supportive or psychosocial care for patients with cancer that addressed clinician-patient interactions were identified [17,19,20,26], a post hoc decision was made to exclude disease-specific clinical practice guidelines that commented on clinician-patient communication but focused mainly on the overall management of the disease.…”

Section: Literature Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The eight systematic reviews are summarized in Table 3 [6,10,12,14,15,22,27,29]. All reviews included reasonably comprehensive literature searches, and most provided clear literature selection criteria [6,10,15,22,27,29], although only three reviews described using methods for literature selection to reduce bias [10,22,29].…”

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All reviews included reasonably comprehensive literature searches, and most provided clear literature selection criteria [6,10,15,22,27,29], although only three reviews described using methods for literature selection to reduce bias [10,22,29]. Most reviews evaluated the validity of the included studies [6,10,15,22,29] and provided clear evidence to support their conclusions [6,14,15,22,29]. Only one of the reviews conducted a quantitative synthesis of the evidence [27].…”

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kruijver et al [14] included three studies examining the impact on clinician-patient communication of a pre-consult patient-completed quality of life assessment (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, QLQ-C30 used in all trials). Patients reported that more issues were addressed when their physician had access to the pre-consult quality of life summary [14].…”

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review

Rodin

Mackay

Zimmermann

et al. 2009

Support Care Cancer

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is little definitive evidence supporting the superiority of one specific method for communicating information compared to another. Evidence regarding the benefit of decision aids or other strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent. Since patients vary in their communication preferences and desire for active participation in decision making, there is a need to individualize communication style.

show abstract

Section: Literature Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review

Rodin

Mackay

Zimmermann

et al. 2009

Support Care Cancer

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As each area of life interacts with one another, problems get more complicated while correlation between life quality and disease is being negatively influenced. [23,24] In our country due to reasons like patient density, lack of personal, and not having a standard measurement device for specifying distress in a wide perspective, problems and distress experienced by individuals being diagnosed with cancer can be missed by health professionals while lack of supportive treatment can be seen. One of the most important steps that can be taken to eliminate this deficiency, is to use standard measurement devices specifying distress experienced by the individuals who are diagnosed with cancer in a wide perspective.…”

Section: Data Collection Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and Reliability Study of James Supportive Care Screening for Cancer Patients

Demirkol¹

2016

TJ Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEThe present study examined the validity and reliability of the James Supportive Care Screening (SCS), a tool to measure the distress of those diagnosed with cancer, for Turkish patients. METHODSAfter necessary approval was obtained from the oncology hospital, research was conducted with 280 chemotherapy outpatients. Content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity tests were used to evaluate validity of SCS use in Turkey, while internal consistency and test-retest reliability were measured to determine reliability. RESULTSContent validity index value based on ratings of experts on all items of SCS found on above 0.80. The Turkish version of the scale has 48 items based on 6 factors, and is similar to the original SCS measure. Confirmatory factor analysis . Cronbach's alpha value of scale was 0.918 and unchangeability against time was proven. CONCLUSIONJames Supportive Care Screening is a valid and reliable measurement tool for screening Turkish cancer patients.

show abstract

Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practice

Tuinman

Gazendam-Donofrio

Hoekstra-Weebers

2008

Cancer

348

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND. The objectives of this study were to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) in the Netherlands and to examine its correspondence with a 46‐item Problem List, possible risk factors, and the wish for a referral. METHODS. A cross‐sectional group of 277 cancer patients who were treated at 9 hospitals filled in the DT and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and rated the presence and severity of problems (response rate, 49%). RESULTS. Receiver operating characteristic analyses identified an ideal cutoff score of 5 on the DT with a positive predictive value of 39% and a negative predictive value of 95%. The Problem List appeared to be a reliable measure. Five items on the Problem List correlated strongly with the DT, 13 items had a moderately strong correlation, 26 items were correlated weakly, and 2 items were not correlated significantly. Emotional control, nervousness, pain, and physical fitness appeared to contribute independently to the DT score. The percentage of patients scoring ≥5 (n = 118 patients; 43%) who wanted (14%) or maybe wanted (29%) a referral was significantly higher than the percentage of patients with DT scores <5 (5% and 13%, respectively) who wanted or maybe wanted a referral. Intensively treated patients reported more distress than those who only underwent surgery. No other clear risk factors for distress were identified. CONCLUSIONS. The DT appeared to be a good instrument for routine screening and ruling out elevated distress. Emotional and physical problems contributed mainly to distress. Experiencing clinically elevated distress did not necessarily suggest that patients wanted a referral. Screening for distress and the wish for a referral can facilitate providing support for those patients who most need and want it. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

Signalising psychosocial problems in cancer care

Cited by 35 publications

References 17 publications

Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review

Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review

Validity and Reliability Study of James Supportive Care Screening for Cancer Patients

Screening and referral for psychosocial distress in oncologic practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About