Adopting a family approach to theory and practice: measuring distress in cancer patient-partner dyads with the distress thermometer

Objective: Significant others are central to patients' experience and management of their cancer illness. Building on our validation of the Distress Thermometer (DT) for family members, this investigation examines individual and collective distress in a sample of cancer patients and their matched partners, accounting for the aspects of gender and role. Method: Questionnaires including the DT were completed by a heterogeneous sample of 224 couples taking part in a multisite study. Results: Our investigation showed that male patients (34.2%), female patients (31.9%), and male partners (29.1%) exhibited very similar levels of distress, while female partners (50.5%) exhibited much higher levels of distress according to the DT. At the dyad level just over half the total sample contained at least one individual reporting significant levels of distress. Among dyads with at least one distressed person, the proportion of dyads where both individuals reported distress was greatest (23.6%). Gender and role analyses revealed that males and females were not equally distributed among the four categories of dyads (i.e. dyads with no distress; dyads where solely the patient or dyads where solely the partner is distressed; dyads where both are distressed). Conclusion: A remarkable number of dyads reported distress in one or both partners. Diverse patterns of distress within dyads suggest varying risks of psychosocial strain. Screening patients' partners in addition to patients themselves may enable earlier identification of risk settings. The support offered to either member of such dyads should account for their role- and gender-specific needs. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley ; Sons, Ltd.

Psychological distress in medical seeking ED care for somatic reasons: results of a systematic review

Objectives: The aim of this systematic literature review is to investigate (A) currently used instruments for assessing psychological distress, (B) the prevalence of psychological distress in medical emergency department (ED) patients with acute somatic conditions and (C) empirical evidence on how predictors are associated with psychological distress. Methods: We conducted an electronic literature search using three databases to identify studies that used validated instruments for detection of psychological distress in adult patients presented to the ED with somatic (non-psychiatric) complaints. From a total of 1688 potential articles, 18 studies were selected for in-depth review. Results: A total of 13 instruments have been applied for assessment of distress including screening questionnaires and briefly structured clinical interviews. Using these instruments, the prevalence of psychological distress detected in medical ED patients was between 4% and 47%. Psychological distress in general and particularly depression and anxiety have been found to be associated with demographic factors (eg, female gender, middle age) and illness-related variables (eg, urgency of triage category). Some studies reported that coexisting psychological distress of medical patients identified in the ED was associated with physical and psychological health status after ED discharge. Importantly, during routine clinical care, only few patients with psychological distress were diagnosed by their treating physicians. Conclusions: There is strong evidence that psychological distress is an important and prevalent cofactor in medically ill patients presenting to the ED with harmful associations with (subjective) health outcomes. To prove causality, future research should investigate whether screening and lowering psychological distress with specific interventions would result in better patient outcomes.