Considerations about risk of ongoing distress: what can we learn from repeat screening?

Seib, C; Lazenby, M; Dunn, J; Chambers, S

Considerations about risk of ongoing distress: what can we learn from repeat screening?

Seib, C Lazenby, M Dunn, J Chambers, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022, 30, (2), pp. 1011-1014
Issue Date:: 2022-02

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	s00520-021-06621-y.pdf		507.43 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Seib, C
dc.contributor.author	Lazenby, M
dc.contributor.author	Dunn, J
dc.contributor.author	Chambers, S https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-6111
dc.date.accessioned	2022-10-27T04:16:31Z
dc.date.available	2021-10-08
dc.date.available	2022-10-27T04:16:31Z
dc.date.issued	2022-02
dc.identifier.citation	Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022, 30, (2), pp. 1011-1014
dc.identifier.issn	0941-4355
dc.identifier.issn	1433-7339
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162751
dc.description.abstract	The importance of routine distress screening in cancer patients is widely acknowledged, though non-compliance with screening protocols is common. Cited reasons for non-adherence include lack of time and expertise and concerns about the resources associated with the identification and management of clinically relevant distress. This commentary examines changes in distress among people with cancer who participated in a tele-based psychosocial intervention, from the point of initial distress screening to 12 months after commencing the intervention. The goal is to contribute to the discussion about the potential infrastructure requirements of implementing screening programs among screening 'hesitant' cancer care services. Secondary analysis showed a general downward distress trajectory though the greatest reduction occurred between recruitment and baseline and before receiving a low-intensity psychosocial intervention (β = - 1.84, 95% CI - 2.12, - 1.56). While acknowledging transience of distress in some patients, our results support the possible therapeutic benefit of assessing and validating individuals' distress in the hope of preventing the development of more overt health problems associated with undiagnosed and untreated symptoms.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Springer
dc.relation.ispartof	Supportive Care in Cancer
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s00520-021-06621-y
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Oncology & Carcinogenesis
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Longitudinal Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Mass Screening
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Stress, Psychological
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Longitudinal Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Mass Screening
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Stress, Psychological
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Mass Screening
dc.subject.mesh	Longitudinal Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Stress, Psychological
dc.title	Considerations about risk of ongoing distress: what can we learn from repeat screening?
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	30
utslib.location.activity	Germany
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-10-27T04:16:29Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	30
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

The importance of routine distress screening in cancer patients is widely acknowledged, though non-compliance with screening protocols is common. Cited reasons for non-adherence include lack of time and expertise and concerns about the resources associated with the identification and management of clinically relevant distress. This commentary examines changes in distress among people with cancer who participated in a tele-based psychosocial intervention, from the point of initial distress screening to 12 months after commencing the intervention. The goal is to contribute to the discussion about the potential infrastructure requirements of implementing screening programs among screening 'hesitant' cancer care services. Secondary analysis showed a general downward distress trajectory though the greatest reduction occurred between recruitment and baseline and before receiving a low-intensity psychosocial intervention (β = - 1.84, 95% CI - 2.12, - 1.56). While acknowledging transience of distress in some patients, our results support the possible therapeutic benefit of assessing and validating individuals' distress in the hope of preventing the development of more overt health problems associated with undiagnosed and untreated symptoms.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162751