The multicenter effectiveness study of inpatient and day hospital treatment in departments of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy in Germany.

Background: Reliable outcome data of psychosomatic inpatient and day hospital treatment with a focus on psychotherapy are important to strengthen ecological validity by assessing the reality of mental health care in the field. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of inpatient and day hospital treatment in German university departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy in a prospective, naturalistic, multicenter design including structured assessments. Methods: Structured interviews were used to diagnose mental disorders according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV at baseline. Depression, anxiety, somatization, eating disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, as well as personality functioning were assessed by means of questionnaires on admission and at discharge. Results: 2,094 patients recruited by 19 participating university hospitals consented to participation in the study. Effect sizes for each of the outcome criteria were calculated for 4-5 sub-groups per outcome domain with differing severity at baseline. Pre-post effect sizes for patients with moderate and high symptom severity at baseline ranged from d = 0.78 to d = 3.61 with symptoms of PTSD, depression, and anxiety showing the largest and somatization as well as personality functioning showing somewhat smaller effects. Conclusions: Inpatient and day hospital treatment in German university departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy is effective under field conditions. Clinical trial registration: https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00016412, identifier: DRKS00016412.

What Kind of Patients Receive Inpatient and Day-Hospital Treatment in Departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy in Germany?

INTRODUCTION: Germany is one of the few countries with a medical specialty of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy and many treatment resources of this kind. OBJECTIVE: This observational study describes the psychosomatic treatment programs as well as a large sample of day-hospital and inpatients in great detail using structured diagnostic interviews. METHODS: Mental disorders were diagnosed according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV by means of Mini-DIPS and SCID-II. In addition to the case records, a modified version of the CSSRI was employed to collect demographic data and service use. The PHQ-D was used to assess depression, anxiety, and somatization. RESULTS: 2,094 patients from 19 departments participated in the study after giving informed consent. The sample consisted of a high proportion of "complex patients" with high comorbidity of mental and somatic diseases, severe psychopathology, and considerable social and occupational dysfunction including more than 50 days of sick leave per year in half of the sample. The most frequent diagnoses were depression, somatoform and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and somato-psychic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient and day-hospital treatment in German university departments of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy is an intensive multimodal treatment for complex patients with high comorbidity and social as well as occupational dysfunction.

Return to work after cancer: Improved mental health in working cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to compare working and non-working patients over a period of 12 months regarding socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a Germany-wide longitudinal survey among 1398 patients in 13 national Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The sample used for analysis consisted of n = 430 cancer patients younger than 65 years (age M = 52.4 years, SD = 8.1; 67.0% females). Socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters (Depression: Patient Health Questionnaire, Anxiety: Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, Distress: Distress Thermometer) were assessed at baseline during hospitalization and at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: 73.7% of all patients (n = 317) have returned to work after one year. While working and non-working patients did not differ in socio-demographic parameters, there were significant differences in the presence of metastases, tumor and treatment status. Mixed analysis of variances revealed significant interactions between working status and time for depression (p = 0.009), anxiety (p = 0.003) and distress (p = 0.007). Non-working patients reported higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients over time. A logistic regression showed significant associations between lower depression (p = 0.019), lower distress (p = 0.033) and the absence of a tumor (p = 0.015) with working status. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cancer survivors returned to work. Non-working patients had higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients. After controlling for cancer-specific factors, mental health parameters were still independently associated with working status. Return to work can thus be associated with an improved mental health in cancer survivors. In order to establish causality, further research is necessary.

Impact of social support on psychosocial symptoms and quality of life in cancer patients: results of a multilevel model approach from a longitudinal multicenter study.

Background: This prospective multicenter study aimed to investigate the courses of positive support (PS) and detrimental interaction (DI), two different aspects of social support, and the relation between social support and psychosocial distress and/or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a large sample of patients with different cancers. Methods: For this observational study, we enrolled adult patients with cancer from 13 comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) in Germany. We included a total of 1087 patients in our analysis. We assessed the outcomes via standardized self-report questionnaires at three measurement points: at admission for acute care (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3) thereafter. Our outcome variables included PS and DI, depression and anxiety symptoms, distress, mental quality of life (MQoL) and physical QoL (PQoL). Data were analyzed using three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and group-based trajectory modeling. Results: During the first year after the cancer diagnosis, both PS and DI decreased in our sample. Baseline depression symptom severity was a significant predictor of PS and DI. Further analyses revealed significant associations between PS, DI and the course of depression and anxiety symptoms, and MQoL. PS buffered the negative effects of DI with regards to these variables. Low DI was associated with better PQoL, whereas PS was not. In general, the impact of social support on psychosocial outcomes was weak to moderate. Conclusions: Our findings provide evidence for the influence of PS and DI on psychosocial symptoms and HRQOL, and emphasize the importance of psycho-oncological interventions that strengthen PS and prevent or reduce DI for patients with cancer and their relatives.

Psychosocial distress and utilization of professional psychological care in cancer patients: An observational study in National Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess cancer patients' use of psychological care and its correlates in a large sample of cancer patients in Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) in Germany. METHODS: In a multicenter study in Germany, cancer patients with various diagnoses were evaluated for self-reported use of psychological support. We measured psychological distress, depression and anxiety, quality of life, and social support with standardized questionnaires and analyzed its association with the utilization of psychological care using multivariable logistic regression. This paper focuses on a cross-sectional analysis of the data assessed during inpatient care. RESULTS: Three thousand fifty-four (50%) of hospitalized patients were asked for participation, and n = 1632 (53.6%) participated. We were able to analyze n = 1,398 (45.9%) patients. Three hundred ninety-seven (28.4%) of the sample utilized psychological support. Users of psychological care were significantly younger than nonusers (odds ratio [OR]: 0.967, P < 0.001) and were more often female (OR: 1.878, P < 0.001), whereas educational level was not associated with the use of psychological care. In the multivariable analysis, effects on the use of psychological care were observed for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety (OR: 1.106, P = 0.001) and both subscales of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) quality of life measure (mental, OR: 0.97, P = 0.002; physical, OR: 0.97, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Psychological distress and anxiety are higher, and quality of life is lower in users of psychological care in comparison with nonusers during inpatient cancer treatment. Although psychooncological services should be provided to all patients who need them, special efforts should be made to reach populations that report low utilization.