Disparities in Electronic Screening for Cancer-Related Psychosocial Distress May Promote Systemic Barriers to Quality Oncologic Care

Screening for Psychosocial Distress: A Brief Review with Implications for Oncology Nursing

PURPOSE

Psychosocial care is an integral component of caring for individuals living with cancer. The identification of psychosocial distress has been acknowledged as a hallmark of quality cancer care, and screening for distress standards has been established in several countries. The purpose of this brief review is to highlight recent developments in screening for distress in oncology populations; to provide insight into significant trends in research and implementation; and to explore implications for oncology nursing practice.

METHODS

This paper reports a brief review of the literature from March 2021 to July 2024 on the topic of screening for distress in oncology. The literature was accessed through PubMed and reviewed by two authors. Trends in the topics presented were identified independently and then discussed to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

The search within the designated period produced 47 publications by authors in North America, Australasia, and Europe. Topic trends included the design and adaptation of tools for special populations, the use of technology, descriptions of programs, identification of benefits, challenges, and overcoming barriers to screening for distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for distress is endorsed as part of the provision of quality oncology care. Nurses have an important role in screening individuals at risk for developing psychosocial problems and acting to reduce the associated morbidity. By continuing to be informed and educated about the emerging developments in screening for distress, nurses can understand and overcome barriers to implementation.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening.

METHODS

We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening.

RESULTS

Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Implementation of Systematic Financial Screening in an Outpatient Breast Oncology Setting

PURPOSE

Implementation of routine financial screening is a critical step toward mitigating financial toxicity. We evaluated the feasibility, sustainability, and acceptability of systematic financial screening in the outpatient breast oncology clinic at a large, urban cancer center.

METHODS

We developed and implemented a stakeholder-informed process to systematically screen for financial hardship and worry. A 2-item assessment in English or Spanish was administered to patients through the electronic medical record portal or using paper forms. We evaluated completion rates and mode of completion. Through feedback from patients, clinicians, and staff, we identified strategies to improve completion rates and acceptability.

RESULTS

From March, 2021, to February, 2022, 3,500 patients were seen in the breast oncology clinic. Of them, 39% (n = 1,349) responded to the screening items, either by paper or portal, 12% (n = 437) preferred not to answer, and the remaining 49% (n = 1,714) did not have data in their electronic health record, meaning they were not offered screening or did not complete the paper forms. Young adults (18-39 years) were more likely to respond compared with patients 70 years or older (61% v 30%, P < .01). English-preferring patients were more likely to complete the screening compared with those who preferred Spanish (46% v 28%, P < .01). Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to respond compared with Non-Hispanic Black patients and with Hispanic patients (46% v 39% v 32%, P < .01). Strategies to improve completion rates included partnering with staff to facilitate paper form administration, optimizing patient engagement with the portal, and clearly communicating the purpose of the screening.

CONCLUSION

Systematic financial screening is feasible, and electronic data capture facilitates successful implementation. However, inclusive procedures that address language and technology preferences are needed to optimize screening.

Psychosocial Care after Cancer Diagnosis: Recent Advances and Challenges

Psychosocial oncology is coming of age [...].