TY - JOUR
T1 - Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy
T2 - Implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure
AU - Dinkel, A.
AU - Berg, P.
AU - Pirker, C.
AU - Geinitz, H.
AU - Sehlen, S.
AU - Emrich, M.
AU - Marten-Mittag, B.
AU - Henrich, G.
AU - Book, K.
AU - Herschbach, P.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Jörg M Sigle for programming the electronic version of the SIRO. This research was supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V.
PY - 2010/11/9
Y1 - 2010/11/9
N2 - Background:To implement distress screening in routine radiotherapy practice and to compare computerised and paper-and-pencil screening in terms of acceptability and utility.Methods:We used the Stress Index RadioOncology (SIRO) for screening. In phase 1, 177 patients answered both a computerised and a paper version, and in phase 2, 273 patients filled out either the computerised or the paper assessment. Physicians received immediate feedback of the psycho-oncological results. Patients, nurses/radiographers (n27) and physicians (n15) evaluated the screening procedure.Results:The agreement between the computerised and the paper assessment was high (intra-class correlation0.92). Patients satisfaction did not differ between the two administration modes. Nurses/radiographers rated the computerised assessment less time consuming (3.7 vs 18.5%), although the objective data did not reveal a difference in time demand. Physicians valued the psycho-oncological results as interesting and informative (46.7%). Patients and staff agreed that the distress screening did not lead to an increase in the discussion of psychosocial issues in clinician-patient encounters.Conclusion:The implementation of a distress screening was feasible and highly accepted, regardless of the administration mode. Communication trainings should be offered in order to increase the discussion of psychosocial topics in clinician-patient encounters.
AB - Background:To implement distress screening in routine radiotherapy practice and to compare computerised and paper-and-pencil screening in terms of acceptability and utility.Methods:We used the Stress Index RadioOncology (SIRO) for screening. In phase 1, 177 patients answered both a computerised and a paper version, and in phase 2, 273 patients filled out either the computerised or the paper assessment. Physicians received immediate feedback of the psycho-oncological results. Patients, nurses/radiographers (n27) and physicians (n15) evaluated the screening procedure.Results:The agreement between the computerised and the paper assessment was high (intra-class correlation0.92). Patients satisfaction did not differ between the two administration modes. Nurses/radiographers rated the computerised assessment less time consuming (3.7 vs 18.5%), although the objective data did not reveal a difference in time demand. Physicians valued the psycho-oncological results as interesting and informative (46.7%). Patients and staff agreed that the distress screening did not lead to an increase in the discussion of psychosocial issues in clinician-patient encounters.Conclusion:The implementation of a distress screening was feasible and highly accepted, regardless of the administration mode. Communication trainings should be offered in order to increase the discussion of psychosocial topics in clinician-patient encounters.
KW - computerised assessment
KW - distress screening
KW - psycho-oncology
KW - psychosocial distress
KW - radiotherapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78149465149&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605930
DO - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605930
M3 - Article
C2 - 20978509
AN - SCOPUS:78149465149
SN - 0007-0920
VL - 103
SP - 1489
EP - 1495
JO - British Journal of Cancer
JF - British Journal of Cancer
IS - 10
ER -