ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2013
Validation and practical implementation of a multidisciplinary cancer distress screening questionnaire.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer patients' wish for psychological support during outpatient radiation therapy : Findings from a psychooncological monitoring program in clinical routine.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Current Treatment of Isolated Locoregional Breast Cancer Recurrences.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Review
- Patient-reported distress and survival among patients receiving definitive radiation therapy.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to identify cancer patients with psychosocial needs during radiotherapy, a routine screening questionnaire is widely recommended in the literature. Several tools focusing mainly on psychological issues have been developed during the past decade. However, problems with their implementation into clinical routine have been repeatedly reported, due to a lack of practicability for clinicians and nurses. This study reports the compilation of a multidisciplinary screening questionnaire and an analysis of the effectiveness of its implementation into clinical routine at the Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University of Vienna. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe screening questionnaire is based on a compilation of several subscales from established and validated assessment tools. It focuses on comprehensive information with high a clinical relevance for all professions. In a pilot study, patients' acceptance was assessed qualitatively. Analysis of missing screening data in consecutively admitted patients reflects the effectiveness of implementation and representativity of the data. A validation analysis of the psychological subscales was performed using external criteria and its internal consistency was tested with Cronbachs' α.
resultsQualitative patient acceptance of the screening questionnaire is good. The overall response rate in the screening procedure was 75 %. Missing patient screening data sets arose randomly-mainly due to organizational problems-and did not result in systematic errors. The psychological subscales identify highly distressed patients with a sensitivity of 89 and 78 %, and an internal consistency of 0.843 and 0.617.
conclusionThe multidisciplinary screening questionnaire compiled in this study has a high patient acceptance, provides reliable and representative data and identifies highly distressed patients with excellent sensitivity. Although requiring additional personnel resources, it can be implemented successfully in clinical routine with benefits for both the patient and the professional team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23703402What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.