z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Addressing distress management challenges: Recommendations from the consensus panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work
Author(s) -
Deshields Teresa L.,
WellsDi Gregorio Sharla,
Flowers Stacy R.,
Irwin Kelly E.,
Nipp Ryan,
Padgett Lynne,
Zebrack Brad
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
ca: a cancer journal for clinicians
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 62.937
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1542-4863
pISSN - 0007-9235
DOI - 10.3322/caac.21672
Subject(s) - psychosocial , psychological intervention , medicine , distress , reimbursement , intervention (counseling) , context (archaeology) , triage , health care , nursing , psychiatry , clinical psychology , paleontology , economics , biology , economic growth
Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients' quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient‐reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization—inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization—outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health‐care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence‐based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here