Cargando…
Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure
BACKGROUND: To implement distress screening in routine radiotherapy practice and to compare computerised and paper-and-pencil screening in terms of acceptability and utility. METHODS: We used the Stress Index RadioOncology (SIRO) for screening. In phase 1, 177 patients answered both a computerised a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20978509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605930 |
_version_ | 1782192481420443648 |
---|---|
author | Dinkel, A Berg, P Pirker, C Geinitz, H Sehlen, S Emrich, M Marten-Mittag, B Henrich, G Book, K Herschbach, P |
author_facet | Dinkel, A Berg, P Pirker, C Geinitz, H Sehlen, S Emrich, M Marten-Mittag, B Henrich, G Book, K Herschbach, P |
author_sort | Dinkel, A |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To implement distress screening in routine radiotherapy practice and to compare computerised and paper-and-pencil screening in terms of acceptability and utility. METHODS: We used the Stress Index RadioOncology (SIRO) for screening. In phase 1, 177 patients answered both a computerised and a paper version, and in phase 2, 273 patients filled out either the computerised or the paper assessment. Physicians received immediate feedback of the psycho-oncological results. Patients, nurses/radiographers (n=27) and physicians (n=15) evaluated the screening procedure. RESULTS: The agreement between the computerised and the paper assessment was high (intra-class correlation=0.92). Patients’ satisfaction did not differ between the two administration modes. Nurses/radiographers rated the computerised assessment less time consuming (3.7 vs 18.5%), although the objective data did not reveal a difference in time demand. Physicians valued the psycho-oncological results as interesting and informative (46.7%). Patients and staff agreed that the distress screening did not lead to an increase in the discussion of psychosocial issues in clinician–patient encounters. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a distress screening was feasible and highly accepted, regardless of the administration mode. Communication trainings should be offered in order to increase the discussion of psychosocial topics in clinician–patient encounters. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2990577 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-29905772011-11-09 Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure Dinkel, A Berg, P Pirker, C Geinitz, H Sehlen, S Emrich, M Marten-Mittag, B Henrich, G Book, K Herschbach, P Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: To implement distress screening in routine radiotherapy practice and to compare computerised and paper-and-pencil screening in terms of acceptability and utility. METHODS: We used the Stress Index RadioOncology (SIRO) for screening. In phase 1, 177 patients answered both a computerised and a paper version, and in phase 2, 273 patients filled out either the computerised or the paper assessment. Physicians received immediate feedback of the psycho-oncological results. Patients, nurses/radiographers (n=27) and physicians (n=15) evaluated the screening procedure. RESULTS: The agreement between the computerised and the paper assessment was high (intra-class correlation=0.92). Patients’ satisfaction did not differ between the two administration modes. Nurses/radiographers rated the computerised assessment less time consuming (3.7 vs 18.5%), although the objective data did not reveal a difference in time demand. Physicians valued the psycho-oncological results as interesting and informative (46.7%). Patients and staff agreed that the distress screening did not lead to an increase in the discussion of psychosocial issues in clinician–patient encounters. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a distress screening was feasible and highly accepted, regardless of the administration mode. Communication trainings should be offered in order to increase the discussion of psychosocial topics in clinician–patient encounters. Nature Publishing Group 2010-11-09 2010-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC2990577/ /pubmed/20978509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605930 Text en Copyright © 2010 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Dinkel, A Berg, P Pirker, C Geinitz, H Sehlen, S Emrich, M Marten-Mittag, B Henrich, G Book, K Herschbach, P Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
title | Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
title_full | Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
title_fullStr | Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
title_full_unstemmed | Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
title_short | Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
title_sort | routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20978509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605930 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dinkela routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT bergp routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT pirkerc routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT geinitzh routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT sehlens routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT emrichm routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT martenmittagb routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT henrichg routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT bookk routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure AT herschbachp routinepsychosocialdistressscreeninginradiotherapyimplementationandevaluationofacomputerisedprocedure |