Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33983534›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2022

Examination of a distress screening intervention for rural cancer survivors reveals low uptake of psychosocial referrals.

Pam Baker DeGuzman, David L Vogel, Bethany Horton, Veronica Bernacchi, C Allen Cupp, B J Ferrebee Ghamandi, Ivora D Hinton, Christi Sheffield, Mark J Jameson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Survivorship care plans and information for rural cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pam Baker DeGuzmanUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, PO Box 800782, Charlottesville, VA, USA. deguzman@virginia.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3229-8422
David L VogelDepartment of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Bethany HortonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Veronica BernacchiUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, PO Box 800782, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
C Allen CuppUniversity of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
B J Ferrebee GhamandiDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ivora D HintonUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, PO Box 800782, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Christi SheffieldUniversity of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Mark J JamesonUniversity of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
University of Virginia · USUniversity of Virginia Cancer CenterIowa State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the impact of a telemedicine-delivered intervention aimed at identifying unmet needs and cancer-related distress (CRD) following the end of active treatment on supportive care referral patterns.

methodsWe used a quasi-experimental design to compare supportive care referral patterns between a group of rural cancer survivors receiving the intervention and a control group (N = 60). We evaluated the impact of the intervention on the number and type of referrals offered and whether or not the participant accepted the referral. CRD was measured using a modified version of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer and Problem List.

resultsOverall, 30% of participants received a referral for further post-treatment supportive care. Supporting the benefits of the intervention, the odds of being offered a referral were 13 times higher for those who received the intervention than those in the control group. However, even among the intervention group, only 28.6% of participants who were offered a referral for further psychosocial care accepted.

conclusionsA nursing telemedicine visit was successful in identifying areas of high distress and increasing referrals. However, referral uptake was low, particularly for psychosocial support. Distance to care and stigma associated with seeking psychosocial care may be factors. Further study to improve referral uptake is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Screening for CRD may be inadequate for cancer survivors unless patients can be successfully referred to further supportive care. Strategies to improve uptake of psychosocial referrals is of high importance for rural survivors, who are at higher risk of CRD.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansReferral and ConsultationSurvivorsCancer-related distressCancer survivorshipDistress screeningHealth disparitiesReferralRural healthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33983534
PMCPMC8116196
OpenAlexW3160779068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.