Abstract
Objective: In line with screening guidelines, cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms (as part of standard care), with those reporting elevated levels of symptoms offered psychological care as part of a trial. Because of the low uptake, no conclusions could be drawn about the interventions' efficacy. Given the trial set-up (following screening guidelines and strict methodological quality criteria), we believe that this observational study reporting the flow of participation, reasons for and characteristics associated with nonparticipation, adds to the debate about the feasibility and efficiency of screening guidelines. Methods: Two thousand six hundred eight medium- to long-term cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Those with moderate depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) were contacted and informed about the trial. Patient flow and reasons for nonparticipation were carefully monitored. Results: One thousand thirty seven survivors (74.3%) returned the questionnaire, with 147 (7.6%) reporting moderate depressive symptoms. Of this group, 49 survivors (33.3%) were ineligible, including 26 survivors (17.7%) already receiving treatment and another 44 survivors (30.0%) reporting no need for treatment. Only 25 survivors (1.0%) participated in the trial. Conclusion: Of the approached survivors for screening, only 1% was eligible and interested in receiving psychological care as part of our trial. Four reasons for nonparticipation were: nonresponse to screening, low levels of depressive symptoms, no need, or already receiving care. Our findings question whether to spend the limited resources in psycho-oncological care on following screening guidelines and the efficiency of using consecutive screening for trial recruitment in cancer survivors.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 830-838 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Psycho-oncology |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 14 Feb 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- UT-Hybrid-D
- cancer survivors
- consecutive screening
- CONSORT
- depression
- oncology
- randomized controlled trial
- recruitment
- screening
- screening guidelines
- cancer
Cite this
}
Reasons for low uptake of a psychological intervention offered to cancer survivors with elevated depressive symptoms. / van der Donk, Loek J. (Corresponding Author); Tovote, K. Annika; Links, Thera P.; Roodenburg, Jan L.N.; Kluin-Nelemans, Johanna C.; Arts, Henriette J.G.; Mul, Veronique E.M.; van Ginkel, Robert J.; Baas, Peter C.; Hoff, Christiaan; Sanderman, Robbert; Fleer, Joke; Schroevers, Maya J.
In: Psycho-oncology, Vol. 28, No. 4, 01.04.2019, p. 830-838.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reasons for low uptake of a psychological intervention offered to cancer survivors with elevated depressive symptoms
AU - van der Donk, Loek J.
AU - Tovote, K. Annika
AU - Links, Thera P.
AU - Roodenburg, Jan L.N.
AU - Kluin-Nelemans, Johanna C.
AU - Arts, Henriette J.G.
AU - Mul, Veronique E.M.
AU - van Ginkel, Robert J.
AU - Baas, Peter C.
AU - Hoff, Christiaan
AU - Sanderman, Robbert
AU - Fleer, Joke
AU - Schroevers, Maya J.
N1 - Wiley deal
PY - 2019/4/1
Y1 - 2019/4/1
N2 - Objective: In line with screening guidelines, cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms (as part of standard care), with those reporting elevated levels of symptoms offered psychological care as part of a trial. Because of the low uptake, no conclusions could be drawn about the interventions' efficacy. Given the trial set-up (following screening guidelines and strict methodological quality criteria), we believe that this observational study reporting the flow of participation, reasons for and characteristics associated with nonparticipation, adds to the debate about the feasibility and efficiency of screening guidelines. Methods: Two thousand six hundred eight medium- to long-term cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Those with moderate depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) were contacted and informed about the trial. Patient flow and reasons for nonparticipation were carefully monitored. Results: One thousand thirty seven survivors (74.3%) returned the questionnaire, with 147 (7.6%) reporting moderate depressive symptoms. Of this group, 49 survivors (33.3%) were ineligible, including 26 survivors (17.7%) already receiving treatment and another 44 survivors (30.0%) reporting no need for treatment. Only 25 survivors (1.0%) participated in the trial. Conclusion: Of the approached survivors for screening, only 1% was eligible and interested in receiving psychological care as part of our trial. Four reasons for nonparticipation were: nonresponse to screening, low levels of depressive symptoms, no need, or already receiving care. Our findings question whether to spend the limited resources in psycho-oncological care on following screening guidelines and the efficiency of using consecutive screening for trial recruitment in cancer survivors.
AB - Objective: In line with screening guidelines, cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms (as part of standard care), with those reporting elevated levels of symptoms offered psychological care as part of a trial. Because of the low uptake, no conclusions could be drawn about the interventions' efficacy. Given the trial set-up (following screening guidelines and strict methodological quality criteria), we believe that this observational study reporting the flow of participation, reasons for and characteristics associated with nonparticipation, adds to the debate about the feasibility and efficiency of screening guidelines. Methods: Two thousand six hundred eight medium- to long-term cancer survivors were consecutively screened on depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Those with moderate depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) were contacted and informed about the trial. Patient flow and reasons for nonparticipation were carefully monitored. Results: One thousand thirty seven survivors (74.3%) returned the questionnaire, with 147 (7.6%) reporting moderate depressive symptoms. Of this group, 49 survivors (33.3%) were ineligible, including 26 survivors (17.7%) already receiving treatment and another 44 survivors (30.0%) reporting no need for treatment. Only 25 survivors (1.0%) participated in the trial. Conclusion: Of the approached survivors for screening, only 1% was eligible and interested in receiving psychological care as part of our trial. Four reasons for nonparticipation were: nonresponse to screening, low levels of depressive symptoms, no need, or already receiving care. Our findings question whether to spend the limited resources in psycho-oncological care on following screening guidelines and the efficiency of using consecutive screening for trial recruitment in cancer survivors.
KW - UT-Hybrid-D
KW - cancer survivors
KW - consecutive screening
KW - CONSORT
KW - depression
KW - oncology
KW - randomized controlled trial
KW - recruitment
KW - screening
KW - screening guidelines
KW - cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062603856&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/pon.5029
DO - 10.1002/pon.5029
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85062603856
VL - 28
SP - 830
EP - 838
JO - Psycho-oncology
JF - Psycho-oncology
SN - 1057-9249
IS - 4
ER -