Interventions to improve screening and appropriate referral of patients with cancer for psychosocial distress: systematic review

被引:51
作者
McCarter, Kristen [1 ]
Britton, Ben [2 ]
Baker, Amanda L. [2 ]
Halpin, Sean A. [1 ]
Beck, Alison K. [2 ]
Carter, Gregory [2 ]
Wratten, Chris [3 ]
Bauer, Judith [4 ]
Forbes, Erin [2 ]
Booth, Debbie [5 ]
Wolfenden, Luke [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Newcastle, Sch Psychol, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Newcastle, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
[3] Calvary Mater Newcastle Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Waratah, Australia
[4] Univ Queensland, Ctr Dietet Res, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
[5] Univ Newcastle, Univ Lib, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
关键词
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; CARE; IMPLEMENTATION; DEPRESSION; MANAGEMENT; OUTCOMES; QUALITY; ANXIETY;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017959
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives The primary aim of the review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to improve clinician provision of psychosocial distress screening and referral of patients with cancer. Design Systematic review. Data sources Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched until July 2016. Inclusion criteria Population: adult patients with cancer and clinical staff members. Intervention: any strategy that aimed to improve the rate of routine screening and referral for detected distress of patients with cancer. Comparison: no intervention controls, 'usual' practice or alternative interventions. Outcome: (primary) any measure of provision of screening and/or referral for distress, (secondary) psychosocial distress, unintended adverse effects. Design: trials with or without a temporal comparison group, including randomised and non-randomised trials, and uncontrolled pre-post studies. Data extraction and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data. Heterogeneity across studies precluded quantitative assessment via meta-analysis and so a narrative synthesis of the results is presented. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were set in oncology clinics or departments and used multiple implementation strategies. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, the overall rating of the certainty of the body of evidence reported in this review was assessed as very low. Three studies received a methodological quality rating of weak and two studies received a rating of moderate. Only one of the five studies reported a significant improvement in referrals. Conclusions The review identified five studies of predominantly poor quality examining the effectiveness of strategies to improve the routine implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer. Future research using robust research designs, including randomised assignment, are needed to identify effective support strategies to maximise the potential for successful implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Are psychological interventions effective and accepted by cancer patients? I. Standards and levels of evidence [J].
Andrykowski, Michael A. ;
Manne, Sharon L. .
ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2006, 32 (02) :93-97
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, CANC PROGR STAND 201
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2015, EPOC TAX
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Survivorship
[5]   Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research [J].
Armijo-Olivo, Susan ;
Stiles, Carla R. ;
Hagen, Neil A. ;
Biondo, Patricia D. ;
Cummings, Greta G. .
JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2012, 18 (01) :12-18
[6]  
Barsevick Andrea M, 2002, Oncol Nurs Forum, V29, P73, DOI 10.1188/02.ONF.73-87
[7]   Systematic screening for distress in oncology practice using the Distress Barometer: the impact on referrals to psychosocial care [J].
Bauwens, Sabien ;
Baillon, Catherine ;
Distelmans, Willem ;
Theuns, Peter .
PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2014, 23 (07) :804-811
[8]   Counselling for mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care [J].
Bower, Peter ;
Knowles, Sarah ;
Coventry, Peter A. ;
Rowland, Nancy .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2011, (09)
[9]   Psychosocial screening effects on health-related outcomes in patients receiving radiotherapy. A cluster randomised controlled trial [J].
Braeken, Anna P. B. M. ;
Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M. ;
Eekers, Danielle B. P. ;
Houben, Ruud M. A. ;
van Gils, Francis C. J. M. ;
Ambergen, Ton ;
Lechner, Lilian .
PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2013, 22 (12) :2736-2746
[10]   Does routine psychosocial screening improve referral to psychosocial care providers and patient-radiotherapist communication? A cluster randomized controlled trial [J].
Braeken, Anna P. B. M. ;
Lechner, Lilian ;
Eekers, Danielle B. P. ;
Houben, Ruud M. A. ;
van Gils, Francis C. J. M. ;
Ambergen, Ton ;
Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2013, 93 (02) :289-297