Patient or treatment centre? Where are efforts invested to improve cancer patients' psychosocial outcomes?

The new challenge for improving psychosocial cancer care: shifting to a system-based approach

INTRODUCTION

There is a need to improve the psychosocial well-being of cancer patients. To date, intervention research has primarily focussed on improving psychosocial well-being through targeting singular aspects of care at the individual patient level. Sustainable, high-quality psychosocial care should address the issues faced by people diagnosed with cancer throughout the care pathway using a system-based approach.

AIMS

To examine the number of intervention trials attempting to improve psychosocial cancer care that have implemented a system-based approach.

METHOD

Five journals were selected and relevant studies across all years were extracted. Four criteria, argued to be essential characteristics of system-based change, were assessed: (1) establishing a culture change within the healthcare system/organisation, through designated leaders who endorse organisational goals; (2) adopting a multidisciplinary approach to change; (3) mapping the system and identifying points of leverage; and (4) measuring the impact of change and adapting establish feedback loops.

RESULTS

The search strategy returned 1174 citations, of which five met the inclusion criteria. Of the intervention studies identified, three met none of the four defined criteria for a systems-based intervention, one study met criterion 2 only, and one study met all four criteria, however, was not a rigorous study design.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of published psychosocial intervention trials in top-ranking psychosocial cancer care journals only found one study that met our criteria for evaluating system-based change. This is likely to be a consequence of the significant pragmatic and political barriers to conducting system-based intervention research.

Predictors of enduring clinical distress in women with breast cancer

To date, little is known about enduring clinical distress as measured with the commonly used distress thermometer. We therefore used the distress thermometer to examine: (a) the prevalence of enduring clinical distress, distress-related problems, and subsequent wish for referral of women with breast cancer, and (b) sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial predictors of enduring clinical distress. The study had a multicenter, prospective, observational design. Patients with primary breast cancer completed a questionnaire at 6 and 15 months postdiagnosis. Medical data were retrieved from chart reviews. Enduring clinical distress was defined as heightened distress levels over time. The prevalence of enduring clinical distress, problems, and wish for referral was examined with descriptive analyses. Associations between predictors and enduring clinical distress were examined with multivariate analyses. One hundred sixty-four of 746 patients (22 %) reported having enduring clinical distress at 6 and 15 months postdiagnosis. Of these, 10 % wanted to be referred for care. Fatigue was the most frequently reported problem by patients with and without clinical distress, at both time points. Lack of muscle strength (OR = 1.82, 95 % CI 1.12-2.98), experience of a low level of life satisfaction (OR = 0.77, 95 % CI 0.67-0.89), more frequent cancer worry (OR = 1.40, 95 % CI 1.05-1.89), and neuroticism (OR = 1.09, 95 % CI 1.00-1.18) were predictors of enduring clinical distress. In conclusion, one in five women with breast cancer develops enduring clinical distress. Oncologists, nurse practitioners, and cancer nurses are advised to use single-item questions about distress and distress-related problems to ensure timely detection of high-risk patients. Providers should also routinely assess fatigue and its causes, as fatigue is the most frequently reported distress-related problem over time.

Unmet needs of Australian and Canadian haematological cancer survivors: a cross-sectional international comparative study

OBJECTIVE

Few population-based studies have assessed the needs of haematological cancer survivors or conducted international comparisons. We aimed to assess and compare the unmet needs of Australian and Canadian haematological cancer survivors.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional datasets were analysed. Survivors were recruited from population-based cancer registries and sent a self-report survey containing the Survivors Unmet Needs Survey. Australians were aged 18-80 years at the time of study and diagnosed in the last 3 years. Canadians were diagnosed 1-5 years prior and aged 19 years and over at diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 268 Australian and 169 Canadian survivors returned a completed survey. 'Dealing with feeling tired' was identified as the highest concern by survivors. Country (LRχ(2)=4.0(1), p=0.045) was associated with survivors reporting a 'high/very high' unmet need with 'worry about earning money,' with Australians reporting marginally nonsignificantly higher odds than Canadians (OR 2.1; 95% CI; 0.99, 4.3). Country was not significantly associated with any other outcome. Having a personal expense in the last month as a result of having cancer, younger age at diagnosis, female sex, vocational or other level education, and consulting a health care professional for cancer treatment or concerns about cancer in the last month were associated with multiple areas of need.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian and Canadian haematological cancer survivors were found to experience similar levels of unmet needs. Overall, haematological cancer survivors may require additional assistance in dealing with feeling tired.

Do cancer patients' psychosocial outcomes and perceptions of quality of care vary across radiation oncology treatment centres?

This study aimed to explore whether rates of depression, and anxiety and patient views about quality of patient-centred care varied across four metropolitan radiation therapy treatment centres in Sydney, Australia. Participants were radiation therapy outpatients, aged 18 or older and English-speaking. Participants completed a brief survey by touch screen computer while waiting for their radiation therapy treatment appointment. For eight indicators of patient-centred care, participants were asked to indicate whether their well-being would have been improved by better care related to the indicator. Participants also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. No differences between treatment centres were found for rates of anxiety and depression, or for the mean number of domains of care endorsed as needing improvement (indicated by agreeing or strongly agreeing that their well-being would have been improved by better care). The lack of variance in these outcomes may reflect that variation in treatment centre characteristics does not influence psychosocial outcomes and patient views of their care. Alternatively, it may suggest that the characteristics of the four treatment centres which participated in the present study were too similar for differences in patient outcomes to be observed.