Longitudinal investigation of Distress Thermometer scores in patients with cancer
Abstract only e24200 Background: The Distress Thermometer (DT) is a tool used to evaluate distress among cancer patients. The DT can provide information for intervention recommendations such as social work, psychological, and other ancillary services. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 38; no. 15_suppl; p. e24200 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
20-05-2020
|
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract only e24200 Background: The Distress Thermometer (DT) is a tool used to evaluate distress among cancer patients. The DT can provide information for intervention recommendations such as social work, psychological, and other ancillary services. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends recurrent use of the tool. The DT is widely used as a standard of care for an initial screening of cancer patients, but data on subsequent use is lacking. The aim of this research was to evaluate repeat DT scores in a heterogeneous cancer patient population. Methods: Clinical investigators conducted a longitudinal study of DT ratings for cancer patients receiving outpatient care at a community-based oncology subspecialty practice in a mid-sized city from 2018 to 2019. Study objectives included reviewing referrals and evaluating the relationship between the initial screening and the screening at the 6-month checkup. The Distress Thermometer was used (i.e., 0-10; zero is “no distress” and ten “extreme distress”) with scores of four or greater regarded as a signal of greater risk for patient distress. Results: The study sample included 79 patients with an average score of 4.3 and 4.0 at baseline and the 6-month screening, respectively. Patient referrals included physical and emotional therapy (n=1) or social/psychosocial worker assessment (n=26). Patients with a documented referral had a crude 1.7 (95% CI: 0.6, 3.3) greater point decrease in scores compared to patients not offered a service referral. When adjusting for baseline scores and the time between scores, referral accounted for 1% (95% CI: 0%, 14%) of variability in score changes, while baseline scores accounted for 40% (95% CI: 22%, 52%) and time accounted for 3% (95% CI: 0%, 14%). Conclusions: Study results reveal a possible decrease in higher scores from the initial screening to the 6-month check-up. Patients with a referral did not have their service utilization confirmed and this study failed to show an additional decrease in scores based on referrals when controlling for baseline score and time. Most previous research has focused on one specific cancer type. This study revealed the possible importance in understanding DT scores in a heterogenous cancer patient population. Furthermore, large scale research is needed to confirm preliminary data and further expound on distress at initial and subsequent screenings after interventions. A better understanding of this content area may function to improve future care and patient well-being. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0732-183X 1527-7755 |
| DOI: | 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e24200 |