Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Acute hospital (1)
- Distress screening (1)
- External-/self-assessment (1)
- FBK-R23 (1)
- HADS (1)
- Hematologic malignancies (1)
- Psycho-oncology (1)
- Quality of life (1)
- bladder cancer (1)
- cancer (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Aims: The study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of mental distress in patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer, the cancer-information search behavior, and the influence of information seeking on distress. Methods: One hundred and one bladder cancer patients answered 2 established questionnaires (“Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale” [HADS] and the “Fragebogen zur Belastung von Krebskranken” [FBK-R23]) for evaluation of mental distress and a self-developed questionnaire with questions concerning information seeking and socioeconomic facts. Results: Regarding risk group stratification, 57.4% were classified as high-risk and 42.6% as low-risk tumor-bearing patients. Analysis of mental distress showed that 23.2% had a score above the HADS-A cutoff, 25.3% above the HADS-D cutoff, and 21.4% showed a pathologic FBK-R23 score. Overall, 75% felt well informed about their illness. Risk group stratification did not correlate with HADS-A, HADS-D, or FBK-R23 score. Furthermore, active search for information or the use of the Internet did not correlate with the HADS-A, HADS-D, or FBK-R23 score. However, the quality of the urologist’s information and the feeling of being informed correlated with the grade of mental distress. Conclusion: Besides the treatment of bladder cancer, informing the patient about the disease in a psychologically wholesome manner and working together with psycho-oncologically trained psychologists are essential tasks for the treating urologist.
Purpose: In this study, we examined distress levels and quality of life (QoL) of patients with hematologic malignancies under treatment in an acute setting. We used external- and self-assessment instruments for distress. Additionally, we investigated the relation between distress and QoL as well as whether highly distressed patients differed from less distressed patients concerning their QoL.
Methods: A cross-sectional study with patients of the Medical Clinic II of the University Hospital Frankfurt was conducted. One hundred and nine patients were assessed with an expert rating scale and completed self-report questionnaires. Data were exploratively analyzed and group comparisons between patients who scored above the cut-off of the respective screening instruments and those who did not were conducted.
Results: Patients with hematologic malignancies experience high levels of distress and low QoL. Especially, role and social functioning are affected. Patients suffer most from fatigue, appetite loss, and insomnia. Using established cut-offs, all screening instruments were able to differentiate between patients regarding distress and QoL. Patients scoring above the cut-off were significantly more distressed and had a lower QoL. There was a medium-to-strong correlation between distress and QoL indicators.
Conclusion: Cancer-specific screening instruments seem to be able to identify treatment needs more specifically. They also allowed a better differentiation concerning QoL. The close link between distress and QoL needs to be recognized to enable a holistic approach to treatment and thereby optimize the quality of treatment.
Objective: To explore and describe exposure to suicidality in healthcare providers (HCP) working with oncological patients. Special emphasis was put on five central aspects from the HCPs perspective: Exposure, Confidence, Expertise, Distress, and Education.
Methods: A 48‐item online questionnaire was developed and distributed to HCPs working with cancer patients. Three hundred fifty‐four answered questionnaires were analyzed.
Results: Overall 83.3% of HCPs reported to have encountered at least one suicidal patient in the last year. Feeling confident in talking about suicidality was reported by 72.1% of HCPs, with 71.2% of nurses reporting feeling insecure compared with only 5.1% of psychotherapists. Similarly, 22.3% of HCPs felt overwhelmed when confronted with a patient who substantiated his suicidality during consultation. A lack of personal knowledge concerning suicidality in general and in oncological patients in particular, was reported by 39.6% and 49.8%, respectively. In total, 88.1% of HCPs reported feeling distressed when confronted with suicidality, while 81.1% of participants wanted further education regarding suicidality in cancer patients despite that 73.2% had already received some sort of psycho‐oncology education.
Conclusions: Despite the well‐documented fact of elevated suicide rates in cancer patients, there remain deficits in knowledge, which induce feelings of insecurity and helplessness in HCPs. There is a demand for further education concerning the treatment of suicidal cancer patients. Therefore, special curricula addressing this topic should be devised. A general debate about suicidality in cancer patients could help raise awareness of this problem and generate means of prevention.