Background: Psychological burden in cancer patients may worsen quality of life and even medical outcomes such as mortality. Nevertheless, many distressed patients are not recognized by the treating clinicians and left untreated even though effective psychosocial interventions exist. Existing screenings programs have multiple limitations such as the necessity of time consuming training and involvement of clincial staff, conventional screening instruments with limited diagnostic accuracy and the focusing on objective measures of distress, thereby neglecting subjective supportive care needs. Aims: To address some of the limitations outlined above, we developed an electronic psycho-oncological adaptive screening program (EPAS) which separately assesses distress and psychosocial care needs and provides immediate patient feedback with individualized recommendations about psychosocial care services. Design: Patients of the intervention are compared to a control condition. All participants are assessed at three measurement points (baseline, and at 3-months and 6-months follow-up). Outcomes: Outcomes assess aspects related to psychosocial care services, well-being and satisfaction. Recruitment: Patients are recruited within suitable health care facilities within the University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH) and other facilities in the competence network of the UCCH. Patients are checked for eligibility via review of the medical chart and consecutively recruited by research assistants. Duration of the study: From start of recruitment, 2 years are planned until data analysis. 1 year is planned for recruitment. Analyses: We conduct group comparisons in the study outcomes, both unconditional and condcitional (controlled for care relevant co-variates).
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Information level about psychosocial services at 3 months-follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Information level about psychosocial services at 6 months-follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T2 (six months follow-up).
Use of the psychosocial services at 3-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Use of the psychosocial services at 6-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T2 (six months follow-up).
Evaluation of access to psychosocial services
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Depressive symptomatology at 3-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Depressive symptomatology at 6-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T2 (six months follow-up).
Anxious symptomatology at 3-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Anxious symptomatology at 6-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T2 (6-months follow-up).
Health-related quality of life at 3-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Health-related quality of life at 6-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T2 (6-months follow-up).
Treatment satisfaction at 3-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T1 (3-months follow-up).
Treatment satisfaction at 6-months follow-up
Timeframe: The outcome is assessed at T2 (6-months follow-up).