Systematic screening for distress in oncology practice using the Distress Barometer: the impact on referrals to psychosocial care

Authors

  • Sabien Bauwens,

    Corresponding author
    1. Dienst Supportieve en Palliatieve Zorg, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
    2. Dienst Klinische Psychologie, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
    • Correspondence to:Dienst Supportieve en Palliatieve Zorg, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium. E-mail: sabien.bauwens@uzbrussel.be

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Catherine Baillon,

    1. Dienst Supportieve en Palliatieve Zorg, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
    2. Dienst Klinische Psychologie, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Willem Distelmans,

    1. Dienst Supportieve en Palliatieve Zorg, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Peter Theuns

    1. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Brussel, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluates how patterns of psychosocial referral of patients with elevated distress differ in a ‘systematic screening for distress’ condition versus a ‘usual practice’ condition in ambulatory oncology practice.

Methods

The psychosocial referral process in a 2-week usual practice (N = 278) condition was compared with a 2-week ‘using the Distress Barometer as a screening instrument’ (N = 304) condition in an outpatient clinic with seven consulting oncologists.

Results

Out of all distressed patients in the usual practice condition, only 5.5% of patients detected with distress were actually referred to psychosocial counselling, compared with 69.1% of patients detected with distress in the condition with systematic screening using the Distress Barometer. Only 3.7% of patients detected with distress in the usual practice condition finally accepted this referral, compared with 27.6% of patients detected with distress in the screening condition.

Conclusions

Using the Distress Barometer as a self-report screening instrument prior to oncological consultation optimises detection of elevated distress in patients, and this results in a higher number of performed and accepted referrals, but cannot by itself guarantee actual psychosocial referral or acceptance of referral. There is not only a problem of poor detection of distress in cancer patients but also a need for better decision-making and communication between oncologists and patients about this issue. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ancillary