Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Cancer (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
To explore and describe attitudes and opinions towards suicidality in healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with oncological patients. 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: The majority of HCPs reported that they were able to understand why a cancer patient would commit suicide (87.8%) or would seek help from an assisted suicide organization (ASO; 83.9%). The understandable reasons were pain and physical impairments (51.4%), social isolation (19.8%), loss of control and autonomy (18.1%), terminal disease (17.2%), loss of meaning (15.3%), desperation (14.7%), and psychic distress (9.3%). Personal experiences with suicidality lead only 44.8% of HCPs to believe that thereby they would be better able to understand a patients’ wish for suicide. Religion was negatively associated with understanding of suicide and why a cancer patient would seek help from an ASO. Knowledge of suicidality was positively associated with why a cancer patient would seek help from an ASO. Conclusions: There is still little knowledge in oncology about the relation of HCPs’ attitudes toward suicidality in their patients and how those attitudes influence their behavior, especially care and treatment of patients. More research on this topic is needed. It stands to reason that more education about suicidality in cancer patients seems likely to improve understanding and attitudes and thereby influence care for cancer patients.
Purpose: Suicidality and suicidal ideation (SI) in oncology has long been an underestimated danger. Although there are cancer-specific distress screening tools available, none of these specifically incorporates items for SI. We examined the prevalence of SI in cancer patients, investigated the relation between SI and distress, and tried to identify additional associated factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study with patients treated for cancer in a primary care hospital was conducted. Psychosocial distress and SI in 226 patients was assessed. An expert rating scale (PO-Bado-SF) and a self-assessment instrument (QSC-R23) were used to measure distress. SI was assessed with item 9 of the PHQ-9. Data was descriptively analyzed, and correlations and group comparisons between clinically distressed and non-distressed patients were calculated. Results: SI was reported by 15% of patients. Classified as clinically distressed were 24.8% (QSC-R23) to 36.7% (PO-Bado-SF). SI was correlated with externally (rτ = 0.19, p < 0.001) and self-rated distress (rτ = 0.31, p < 0.001). Symptoms sufficiently severe for at least a medium major depressive episode were recorded in 23.5% of patients (PHQ-9). Factors associated with SI were feeling bad about oneself, feeling down, depressed, and hopeless, deficits in activities of daily life, psycho-somatic afflictions, social restrictions, and restrictions in daily life. Being in a steady relationship seemed to have a protective effect. Conclusions: SI is common in cancer patients. Distress and associated factors are increased in patients with SI. A distress screening with the ability to assess SI could be an important step in prevention, but more research is necessary.