Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer

S. A. McLachlan, A. Allenby, J. Matthews, A. Wirth, D. Kissane, M. Bishop, J. Beresford, J. Zalcberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received. Methods: Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received. Results: There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P = .001). Conclusion: Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4117-4125
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume19
Issue number21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2001

Cite this

@article{1cdff04668b445e6b19550c3772e3465,
title = "Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received. Methods: Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received. Results: There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P = .001). Conclusion: Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.",
author = "McLachlan, {S. A.} and A. Allenby and J. Matthews and A. Wirth and D. Kissane and M. Bishop and J. Beresford and J. Zalcberg",
year = "2001",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2001.19.21.4117",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "4117--4125",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY",
number = "21",

}

Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. / McLachlan, S. A.; Allenby, A.; Matthews, J.; Wirth, A.; Kissane, D.; Bishop, M.; Beresford, J.; Zalcberg, J.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 21, 01.11.2001, p. 4117-4125.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer

AU - McLachlan, S. A.

AU - Allenby, A.

AU - Matthews, J.

AU - Wirth, A.

AU - Kissane, D.

AU - Bishop, M.

AU - Beresford, J.

AU - Zalcberg, J.

PY - 2001/11/1

Y1 - 2001/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received. Methods: Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received. Results: There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P = .001). Conclusion: Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.

AB - Purpose: To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received. Methods: Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received. Results: There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P = .001). Conclusion: Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035503161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.21.4117

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.21.4117

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 4117

EP - 4125

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 21

ER -