ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Cancer survivorship presents many challenges for affected individuals and their health care providers. Reports from The Institute of Medicine document these challenges and recommend the use of survivorship treatment summaries and care plans to improve communication and coordination of care for cancer survivors. The purpose of our study was to assess current use of treatment summaries and care plans in Massachusetts and identify obstacles to greater use. METHODS: A survey was mailed to cancer specialist physicians (CSPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) in Massachusetts. The survey asked CSPs about their preparation of treatment summaries and care plans for their cancer survivor patients and perceived barriers to the provision of these documents. PCPs were asked about receipt and utility of treatment summaries and care plans and information they would like to see in these reports. RESULTS: One hundred eight CSPs and 400 PCPs answered the survey. Fifty-six percent of CSPs reported that they, or their staff, prepared treatment summaries for their cancer survivor patients; however, only 14% reported preparing care plans. Fifty-four percent of PCPs reported ever receiving a treatment summary, but only 16% ever received a care plan. CSPs cited lack of training, reimbursement, and templates as barriers to preparing care plans. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions are needed to make treatment summaries and care plans a part of standard care for all cancer survivors. Increasing the use of treatment summaries and care plans will require specific training and reimbursement and may be facilitated by templates that capture automated data.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Care Planning/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Male , Massachusetts , Neoplasms/pathology , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Specialization , SurvivorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Screening for psychological distress is an important tool for improving survivors' access to psychosocial care. The Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) has been widely used to identify psychological distress in cancer survivors, but few studies have reported on its validity. This study evaluated validity of the BSI-18 by comparing it to the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). METHODS: Concordance of cases identified by the BSI-18 and SCL-90 was examined in a sample of 193 adult survivors of childhood cancer. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed strong diagnostic utility of the BSI-18 (area under curve = 0.922). However, the standard BSI-18 case-rule demonstrated low sensitivity (45.2%) against the SCL-90. An alternative case-rule showed better results; sensitivity (87.10%), specificity (83.33%). CONCLUSIONS: The BSI-18 is a useful measure for evaluating distress in adult survivors of childhood cancers; however, the standard BSI-18 case-rule has not been validated for this population, and an alternative case rule should be considered.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms/psychology , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales/standards , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Checklist/instrumentation , Checklist/standards , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Psychometrics/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Survivors , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, identification of brief, valid psychological screening measures is critical for providing these survivors with appropriate psychosocial care. The distress thermometer (DT) is a one-item distress screening recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for screening cancer patients during their treatment. METHOD: In this study, the validity of the DT for identifying psychological distress in cancer survivors was evaluated by comparing results of the DT to the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) in a sample of 120 survivors of adult onset cancer. RESULTS: Results indicated that when using the NCCN suggested cutoff score of 5, the DT only identified 10 of the 21 BSI-18 positive cases of psychological distress (sensitivity 47.6%; specificity 90.9%). Using an alternative DT cutoff score of 4, 12 of the 21 BSI-18 positive cases were identified (sensitivity 51.7%; specificity 89.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support the validity of the DT in survivors of adult cancers.
