Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34468826›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment.

Tenbroeck G Smith, Asher E Beckwitt, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Jeuneviette E Bontemps-Jones, Ted A James, Ryan M McCabe, Amanda B Francescatti, Neil K Aaronson

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Preliminary feedback from adult oncology clinic providers on a psychosocial screening tool for young adult patients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Tenbroeck G SmithPopulation Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA. tenbroeck.smith@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1752-0577
Asher E BeckwittAsher Consulting LLC, Germantown, MD, USA.
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeuneviette E Bontemps-JonesPopulation Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ted A JamesBreast Surgical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Ryan M McCabeCancer Programs and National Cancer Database, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA.
Amanda B FrancescattiCancer Programs and National Cancer Database, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA.
Neil K AaronsonDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
American Cancer Society · USAmerican College of Surgeons · USAsher Consulting (United States) · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

American Cancer Society Intramurally funded
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years.

methodsWe conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations.

resultsStrengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs.

conclusionCancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsHumansMass ScreeningPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQualitative ResearchCancerPatient-reported outcome measuresPsychosocial distressSupport careSymptoms

Identifiers

PMID34468826
OpenAlexW3197339421

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.