European journal of cancer care · 2019
Outcome comparison of integrated psycho-oncological care versus unstructured care-Results of a non-randomised open-label two-arm trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taylor Katherine, Singer Susanne, May Melanie, Durdu Gülsemin, Petermann-Meyer Andrea
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare patients' experiences with a systematic, integrated psycho-oncological care (IC) model to experiences with "care as usual" (CAU).
METHODS: To improve patients' knowledge about psychosocial support options and to facilitate use, an IC model was developed by psycho-oncologists and a health insurance company and implemented in one German cancer care facility. Using a parallel, non-randomised design, these patients' experiences were compared to CAU patients. In 2015, both patient groups received questionnaires 6-12 months post-inpatient treatment. Main outcomes were awareness, use and opinion of psycho-oncological care (PC) and anxiety level (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7)).
RESULTS: 228 patients (IC = 90; CAU = 138) participated (response rate 24%). More IC patients felt adequately informed about PC (63% vs. 46%, ORadj : 2.5 (CI: 1.3-4.8); p = 0.008). More IC patients recalled being offered various support options and had had at least one PC discussion (44% vs. 33%, ORadj of IC patient saying "yes" instead of "No, didn't want to" compared to a CAU patient: 0.4 (CI: 0.2-0.8); p = 0.01). More IC patients rated their care as good/excellent (49% vs. 38%, ORadj : 1.8 (CI: 0.7-4.1; p = 0.2)). Anxiety levels were similar (GAD-7 score>=10: IC 34% vs. CAU 28%; p = 0.4).
CONCLUSION: Structured psycho-oncological care had some positive results on the outcomes, but anxiety levels did not differ.
METHODS: To improve patients' knowledge about psychosocial support options and to facilitate use, an IC model was developed by psycho-oncologists and a health insurance company and implemented in one German cancer care facility. Using a parallel, non-randomised design, these patients' experiences were compared to CAU patients. In 2015, both patient groups received questionnaires 6-12 months post-inpatient treatment. Main outcomes were awareness, use and opinion of psycho-oncological care (PC) and anxiety level (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7)).
RESULTS: 228 patients (IC = 90; CAU = 138) participated (response rate 24%). More IC patients felt adequately informed about PC (63% vs. 46%, ORadj : 2.5 (CI: 1.3-4.8); p = 0.008). More IC patients recalled being offered various support options and had had at least one PC discussion (44% vs. 33%, ORadj of IC patient saying "yes" instead of "No, didn't want to" compared to a CAU patient: 0.4 (CI: 0.2-0.8); p = 0.01). More IC patients rated their care as good/excellent (49% vs. 38%, ORadj : 1.8 (CI: 0.7-4.1; p = 0.2)). Anxiety levels were similar (GAD-7 score>=10: IC 34% vs. CAU 28%; p = 0.4).
CONCLUSION: Structured psycho-oncological care had some positive results on the outcomes, but anxiety levels did not differ.