Use of psycho-oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis

Does the distance to the cancer center affect psycho-oncological care and emergency visits of patients with IDH wild-type gliomas? A retrospective study

Background

Malignant isocitrate dehydrogenase wild-type (IDHwt) gliomas impose a high symptomatic and psychological burden. Wide distances from patients' homes to cancer centers may affect the delivery of psycho-oncological care. Here, we investigated, in a large brain tumor center with a rural outreach, the initiation of psycho-oncological care depending on spatial distance and impact of psycho-oncological care on emergency visits.

Methods

Electronic patient charts, the regional tumor registry, and interviews with the primary care physicians were used to investigate clinical data, psycho-oncological care, and emergency unit visits. Interrelations with socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment aspects were investigated using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis and the Pearson's Chi-square test.

Results

Of 491, 229 adult patients of this retrospective cohort fulfilled the inclusion criteria for analysis. During the last three months of their lives, 48.9% received at least one psycho-oncological consultation, and 37.1% visited the emergency unit at least once. The distance from the cancer center did neither affect the initiation of psycho-oncological care nor the rate of emergency unit visits. Receiving psycho-oncological care did not correlate with the frequency of emergency unit visits in the last three months of life.

Conclusion

We conclude that the distance of IDHwt glioma patients' homes from their cancer center, even in a rural area, does not significantly influence the rate of psycho-oncological care.

Incorporating psychosocial care into routine oncological care: insights into challenges and strategies from certified cancer centers' audit data

PURPOSE

Provision of psychosocial care is obligatory in cancer centers certified in accordance with the criteria of the German Cancer Society, but the extent to which it is utilized differs greatly between centers. Anomalous utilization percentages are discussed during certification audits. This analysis aims to describe (1) how certified centers explain psychosocial care utilization percentages during audits and (2) the measures they then plan for improving psychosocial care utilization. The aim of the analysis is to help understand patterns of psychosocial care utilization in oncology and reduce potential disparities by describing the challenges that cancer centers face and their strategies for integrating psychosocial care into routine oncological care.

METHODS

The content of free-text comments regarding psychosocial utilization percentages by certified centers during certification audits in 2019 was analyzed. In total, 178 comments were analyzed from 116 prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer centers in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and Luxembourg.

RESULTS

The explanations for utilization percentages most often mentioned involved patients' levels of interest and need, outpatient care, staff shortages, inclusion of psychosocial care in other processes in the center, documentation issues, and factors regarding different legal regulations in countries outside Germany. The measures most often planned for improving psychosocial care utilization involved adjusting work processes, increasing staff resources, optimizing documentation, and establishing quality-assurance groups/task forces.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory analysis shows that the challenges and strategies involved in incorporating psychosocial care into routine oncological care are diverse. Further research should identify process-level strategies that can promote the integration of psychosocial care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

'It was like taking an inner bath': A qualitative evaluation of a collaborative advance care planning-approach

BACKGROUND

Impaired readiness may hinder purposeful advance care planning in cancer patients. To reduce barriers to participation in end-of-life decision-making, a collaborative intervention was developed combining a psycho-oncological approach of dignity-based and cognitive-behavioural interventions, followed by a standardised advance care planning-process.

AIM

To evaluate the novel collaborative advance care planning-approach by synthetising cancer patient and carer perspectives on communicational and relational effects.

DESIGN

As a sub-project of a mixed-methods evaluation study, we conducted an inductive content analysis of qualitative interviews with advanced cancer patients and caregivers to deeply explore the focused impact of a collaborative advance care planning-approach on communication and relationship dynamics.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Twelve patients with advanced cancer and 13 carers who participated in a collaborative advance care planning-intervention.

RESULTS

The collaborative advance care planning-approach was consistently evaluated positively by participants. Transcriptions of the semi-structured interviews were coded, analysed and merged under three main themes concerning communicational and relationship dynamics: action readiness, content readiness and impact on future communication and relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel intervention served to foster individual readiness - including action and content readiness - for advance care planning-discussions by addressing highly individualised barriers to participation, as well as specific end-of-life issues. In addition, societal readiness could be promoted. Although the brief psycho-oncological intervention could not fully meet the needs of all participants, it can be used to develop individual psychotherapeutic strategies to improve different facets of readiness. The collaborative advance care planning-approach might require more time and human resources, but could pioneer successful advance care planning.

Predictors for the utilization of social service counseling by prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

Social service counseling (SSC) is an important instrument to support cancer patients, for example, regarding legal support, or rehabilitation. Several countries have established on-site SSC in routine care. Previous analyses have shown that SSC utilization varies across cancer centers. This analysis investigates patient and center-level predictors that explain variations in SSC utilization between centers.

METHODS

Logistic multilevel analysis was performed with data from 19,865 prostate cancer patients from 102 prostate cancer centers in Germany and Switzerland. Data was collected within an observational study between July 2016 and June 2020 using survey (online and paper) and tumor documentation.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient for the null model implies that 51% of variance in SSC utilization is attributable to the center a patient is treated in. Patients aged 80 years and older, with higher education, private insurance, without comorbidities, localized intermediate risk, and undergoing androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion were less likely to utilize SSC. Undergoing primary radiotherapy, active surveillance, or watchful waiting as compared to prostatectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of SSC utilization. Significant negative predictors at the center level were university hospital, center's location in Switzerland, and a short period of certification.

CONCLUSION

The results show that patient and center characteristics contribute to explaining the variance in SSC utilization in prostate cancer centers to a large extent. The findings may indicate different organizational processes in the countries included and barriers in the sectoral structure of the healthcare system. In-depth analyses of processes within cancer centers may provide further insights into the reasons for variance in SSC utilization.

Use of social service counseling by cancer patients: an analysis of quality assurance data of 6339 breast cancer patients from 13 certified centers in Germany treated between 2015 and 2017

Background

Integrated social care may help to mitigate social risk factors in order to achieve more equitable health outcomes. In cancer centers certified according to the criteria set out by the German Cancer Society, every patient must be given low-threshold access to qualified social workers at the center for in-house social service counseling (SSC). Previous analyses have demonstrated large variation in the utilization of these services across individual centers. Therefore, this research aims at investigating whether SSC utilization varies regarding breast cancer patient characteristics and center characteristics presenting a unique approach of using routine data.

Methods

Multilevel modeling was performed using quality assurance data based on 6339 patients treated in 13 certified breast cancer centers in Germany in order to investigate whether SSC utilization varies with patient sex, age, and disease characteristics as well as over time and across centers.

Results

In the sample, 80.3% of the patients used SSC. SSC use varies substantially between centers for the unadjusted model (ICC = 0.24). Use was statistically significantly (P < .001) more likely in women, patients with invasive (in comparison to tumor in situ/ductal carcinoma in situ) diseases (P < .001), patients with both breasts affected (P = .03), patients who received a surgery (P < .001), patients who were diagnosed in 2015 or 2017 compared to 2016 (P < .001) and patients older than 84 years as compared to patients between 55 and 64 years old (P = .002).

Conclusion

The analysis approach allows a unique insight into the reality of cancer care. Sociodemographic and disease-related patient characteristics were identified to explain SSC use to some extent.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08396-1.

Use of psycho-oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis

Background

Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho‐oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs).

Methods

Center‐reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted.

Results

Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients’ age (OR = 0.98; 95%‐CI = 0.96‐0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1‐2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%‐CI = 1.00‐1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high‐risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%‐CI = 1.14‐1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%‐CI = 0.10‐0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%‐CI = 0.02‐0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%‐CI = 0.03‐0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%‐CI = 0.02‐0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high‐risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%‐CI = 1.05‐1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%‐CI = 0.01‐0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics.

Conclusions

Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects – for example, less need following radiotherapy – or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.