Psychosocial Distress Screening in a Community Cancer Center: An Examination of Gender Differences

Objective: The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the needs of male and female oncology patients within a community cancer setting to inform the provision of psychosocial services. Data obtained from 835 single-page measures of oncology patient distress were collected and analyzed to examine the relationship between gender and reported level of distress, the source of this distress, and requests for follow-up from psychosocial service providers.Method: Patients in medical and radiation oncology were given a distress screener tool that included a distress thermometer, a problem checklist, and a list of psychosocial service providers with whom the patient could request to speak.Results: Women reported higher levels of distress than men (p=.003). Women were also more likely than men to endorse practical problems as the cause of their distress (p=.003). A marginally significant relationship between gender and requesting the cancer resource navigator was also found (p=. 059)Conclusion: Gender is a salient factor in reported distress among cancer patients. Although no single variable can entirely explain an individual's response to cancer, male and female patients do appear to have distinctive, gender-specific needs. Psychosocial interventions that account for differences related to gender-role may be particularly beneficial. These results also illustrate the utility of consistent screening practices to better understand and meet the psychosocial needs of oncology

Psychosocial Distress Screening in a Community Cancer Center: An Exploratory Study of Distress Screening Across the Cancer Treatment Continuum

Purpose: The primary goal of this exploratory study is to demonstrate that distress screening across the course of cancer treatment is possible and provides valuable information about patient needs over time. Distress screening is aligned with guidelines from national accrediting organizations and may lead to improved health-related quality of life, satisfaction with medical care, and possibly survival.Methods: Medical, surgical, and radiation oncology patients completed a screening instrument before their appointments during a six-month period. Patients indicated their level of distress on four domains (practical, emotional, health and social concerns). De-identified data was collected, aggregated and descriptive statistics were analyzed.Results: Approximately 3000 screens were collected and 1500 cancer patients were screened. Of patients who indicated distress, 54% demonstrated a distress level of five or greater. Distress level eight was the most frequent level of distress indicated. The Cancer Dietitian was the most commonly requested healthcare team provider. The Health Concern domain was most frequently endorsed.Conclusion: NCCN, IOM and COC guidelines recommend distress screening in all cancer treatment centers, however implementation has proven difficult. This study adds to the literature about distress in cancer patients, demonstrates the feasibility of repeated distress screening and provides a model program demonstrating the implementation of repeated distress screening at a community cancer center. Findings highlight the importance of supportive oncology services due to the prevalence of high levels of distress. Findings demonstrate the importance of the Cancer Dietitian in supportive cancer care. Additionally, the research reveals a potential perceived stigma in seeking psychosocial oncology services.

Utilizing Evidence-Based Psychology Practice in the University of Denver's Professional Psychology Center: A Proposal

As acceptance of the Evidence-based Psychology Practice (EBPP) model continues to grow (Pagoto, Spring, Coups, Mulvaney, Coutu, & Ozakinci, 2007), it seems pertinent to explore how this model can be applied in different settings. This topic is timely as practitioners in the field are being held ever more accountable for the efficacy of the treatments they employ (Pagoto et al., 2007). Increased scrutiny has resulted in a need to integrate research into practice in order to ensure continued relevance in the ever-changing realm of American health care (Luebbe, Radcliffe, Callands, Green & Thorn, 2007; Collins, Leffingwell & Belar, 2007; Chwalisz, 2003). This paper explores how the requirements set forth by the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006) can be implemented at the University of Denver's (DU) Professional Psychology Center (PPC), a training clinic for students enrolled in the Psy.D. program at DU's Graduate School of Professional Psychology (GSPP). In doing so, the methods employed by Collins et al. (2007) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) are used as a template and modified to accommodate differences between these two institutions.