ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer distress management is an evidence-based component of comprehensive cancer care. Group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer distress (CBT-C) is the first distress treatment associated with replicated survival advantages in randomized clinical trials. Despite research supporting patient satisfaction, improved outcomes, and reduced costs, CBT-C has not been tested sufficiently within billable clinical settings, profoundly reducing patient access to best-evidence care. This study aimed to adapt and implement manualized CBT-C as a billable clinical service. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods, hybrid implementation study design was used, and the study was conducted in 3 phases: (1) stakeholder engagement and adaptation of CBT-C delivery, (2) patient and therapist user testing and adaptation of CBT-C content, and (3) implementation of practice-adapted CBT-C as a billable clinical service focused on evaluation of reach, acceptability, and feasibility across stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 40 individuals and 7 interdisciplinary group stakeholders collectively identified 7 primary barriers (eg, number of sessions, workflow concerns, patient geographic distance from center) and 9 facilitators (eg, favorable financial model, emergence of oncology champions). CBT-C adaptations made before implementation included expanding eligibility criteria beyond breast cancer, reducing number of sessions to 5 (10 total hours), eliminating and adding content, and revising language and images. During implementation, 252 patients were eligible; 100 (40%) enrolled in CBT-C (99% covered by insurance). The primary reason for declining enrollment was geographic distance. Of enrollees, 60 (60%) consented to research participation (75% women; 92% white). All research participants completed at least 60% of content (6 of 10 hours), with 98% reporting they would recommend CBT-C to family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-C implementation as a billable clinical service was acceptable and feasible across cancer care stakeholder measures. Future research is needed to replicate acceptability and feasibility results in more diverse patient groups, test effectiveness in clinical settings, and reduce barriers to access via remote delivery platforms.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Male , Medical Oncology , Comprehensive Health Care , Patient Satisfaction , Research DesignABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with disorders of gastrointestinal function may undergo unnecessary treatment if misdiagnosed as motility disorders. OBJECTIVE: To report on clinical features, medical, surgical and psychiatric co-morbidities, and prior treatments of a patient cohort diagnosed concurrently with non-psychogenic rumination syndrome and pelvic floor dysfunction (also termed rectal evacuation disorder). METHODS: From a consecutive series (1994-2013) of 438 outpatients with rectal evacuation disorders in the practice of a single gastroenterologist at a tertiary care center, 57 adolescents or adults were diagnosed with concomitant rumination syndrome. All underwent formal psychological assessment or completed validated questionnaires. RESULTS: All 57 patients (95% female) fulfilled Rome III criteria for rumination syndrome; rectal evacuation disorder was confirmed by testing of anal sphincter pressures and rectal balloon evacuation. Prior to diagnosis, most patients underwent multiple medical and surgical treatments (gastrostomy, gastric fundoplication, other gastric surgery, ileostomy, colectomy) for their symptoms. Psychological co-morbidity was identified in 93% of patients. Patients were managed predominantly with psychological and behavioral approaches: diaphragmatic breathing for rumination and biofeedback retraining for pelvic floor dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of concomitant rectal evacuation disorder and rumination syndrome and prompt identification of psychological co-morbidity are keys to instituting behavioral and psychological methods to avoid unnecessary treatment.
