Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jun;18(3):406-18.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12045. Epub 2013 Jan 31.

Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process

Eli Ristevski  1 , Melanie Regan, Rebecca Jones, Sibilah Breen, Angela Batson, Matthew R McGrail
Affiliations

Cancer patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process

Eli Ristevski et al. Health Expect. 2015 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Incorporating supportive care into routine cancer care is an increasing priority for the multi-disciplinary team with growing evidence of its importance to patient-centred care. How to design and deliver a process which is appropriate for patients, clinicians and health services in rural areas needs further investigation.

Objective: To (i) examine the patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of incorporating a supportive care screening and referral process into routine cancer care in a rural setting, and (ii) explore any potential influences of patient variables on the acceptability of the process.

Methods: A total of 154 cancer patients and 36 cancer clinicians across two rural areas of Victoria, Australia participated. During treatment visits, patients and clinicians participated in a supportive care process involving screening, discussion of problems, and provision of information and referrals. Structured questionnaires with open and closed questions were used to measure patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility.

Results: Patients and clinicians found the supportive care process highly acceptable. Screening identified relevant patient problems (90%) and problems that may not have otherwise been identified (83%). The patient-clinician discussion helped patients realize help was available (87%) and enhanced clinician-patient rapport (72%). Patients received useful referrals to services (76%). Feasibility issues included timing of screening for newly diagnosed patients, privacy in discussing problems, clinician time and availability of referral options. No patient demographic or disease factors influenced acceptability or feasibility.

Conclusions: Patients and clinicians reported high acceptability for the supportive care process, although mechanisms for incorporating the process into health care need to be further developed.

Keywords: cancer; health professional; implementation; patient; regional; supportive care.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Surbone A, Baider L, Weitzman TS, Jacqueline Brames M, Rittenberg CN, Johnson J. Psychosocial care for patients and their families is integral to supportive care in cancer: MASCC position statement. Supportive Care in Cancer, 2010; 18: 255–263. - PubMed
    1. Carlson LE, Bultz BD. Cancer distress screening: needs, models and methods. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 2003; 55: 403–409. - PubMed
    1. Boyes A, Newell S, Girgis A, McElduff P, Sanson‐Fisher R. Does routine assessment and real‐time feedback improve cancer patients' psychosocial well‐being? European Journal of Cancer Care, 2006; 15: 163–171. - PubMed
    1. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith A et al Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well‐being: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004; 22: 714–724. - PubMed
    1. Carlson LE, Groff SL, Maciejewski O, Bultz BD. Screening for distress in lung and breast cancer outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2010; 28: 4884–4891. - PubMed

Publication types