Identifying patient-level factors associated with interest in psychosocial services during cancer: A brief report.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of psychosocial services during cancer treatment remains relatively low. To use these services efficiently, novel approaches - based on evidence-based theory - are needed to understand cancer patients' readiness to seek psychosocial services. Guided by the transtheoretical model (TTM), we investigated individuals' readiness to use psychosocial services by assessing decisional conflict (pros/cons) and self-efficacy, which are established as the most important constructs of predicting a specific behavior. METHODS: In these secondary analyses, we examined demographic and treatment-related factors in a national sample of adult cancer patients and survivors in the United States as predictors of decisional balance (pros/cons) and self-efficacy (i.e., two core TTM constructs) of engaging in psychosocial services. Participants were recruited through an online survey. In addition to examining demographic factors (age, sex, race, and marital status) as independent variables using t tests and correlations, treatment-related variables, such as having multiple cancers, type of cancer, type of treatment, and treatment setting were included. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-six participants completed the survey. The sample was primarily Caucasian (79%) and female (54.7%); average age was 47.9 (SD = 14.8). While no significant relationships emerged for self-efficacy, younger age and non-Caucasian race were significantly related to greater cons of seeking psychosocial care. Finally, those with multiple cancers versus reporting only one malignancy endorsed more cons of seeking psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the importance of measuring the cons of seeking psychosocial care during cancer treatment, with younger age, non-Caucasian, and those reporting experience with multiple cancers endorsing greater cons. This may impact eventual uptake of available services. Future research should identify individuals at risk for declining services based on perceived cons of seeking psychosocial care during cancer.

Development and Implementation of a Psychological Service for Patients With Cancer.

Cancer patients frequently experience considerable distress during diagnosis and treatment. The aims of this study were to describe the development and utilization of a psychological service for cancer patients at a community hospital-and to provide preliminary results on clinical outcomes in a "real-world" clinical setting. This program was developed collaboratively by individuals from a university-based clinical psychology doctoral program and a community hospital. The psychological service was comprised of a licensed, PhD-level clinical psychologist and seven clinical psychology doctoral students. Patients were typically referred by their oncologists or nurses. Distress, depression, and anxiety were evaluated for a small subsample of participants. From the time the program was initiated, 238 patients between ages 18 and 95 (M = 66.4) were evaluated over a 3-year period. Most patients (77.8%) were offered psychosocial care. Although 49.8% declined treatment, 23.6% attended one session and 26.6% attended two or more. Average number of individual sessions was 2.77 (SD=8.31, range=0-96) and 0.06 (SD=0.43, range=0-4) for groups sessions. Patients referred through the Survivorship Training and Rehabilitation (STAR) Program® (i.e., a program providing multidisciplinary services) were more likely to engage in psychosocial care than those who found out about behavioral health in other ways. Patients experienced declines in depression (Wilks' Λ=.580, F(2, 14)=5.08, p=.022), but not anxiety (Wilks' Λ=.613, F(2, 12)=3.79, p=.053) across sessions. An in-depth case description is provided. Distress tracking may be improved if nurses, oncologists, and behavioral health providers administer measures. Partnerships between clinical psychology doctoral programs and hospitals may be mutually beneficial - and may advance the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychosocial interventions. Hospitals offering cancer treatment may benefit from generating referrals for comprehensive cancer care. These efforts can serve as a model for other hospitals seeking to integrate behavioral health into routine cancer treatment.

Measures of psychosocial care utilization in a national sample of cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer is one of the most physically and emotionally debilitating diseases. Despite evidence that psychosocial care can improve psychological and physiological functioning, as few as 4.4% of patients are willing to engage in psychosocial treatment. Few studies explored drivers of psychosocial care underutilization. Therefore, treatment engagement strategies are needed, by identifying patients' barriers to psychosocial treatment. This study evaluated readiness to utilize psychosocial care by developing transtheoretical model (TTM) measures of stage of change, decisional balance, and self-efficacy. METHOD: Online survey data was collected from a national sample of 475 adults (Mage = 47.89, SD = 14.77) with cancer diagnoses. A sequential process of measure development was used. Semistructured expert and research participant interviews were conducted for initial item development, followed by exploratory, confirmatory, and external validation analyses. RESULTS: Principal components analyses (PCA) indicated two, 4-item factors (pros α = .874; cons α = .716) for decisional balance. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) supported a 2-factor correlated model, χ²(19) = 68.56, CFI = .962, RMSEA = .078. For self-efficacy, PCA indicated two, 3-item components (physical α = .892; social/emotional α = .708). CFA supported this structure χ²(8) = 23.72, CFI = .989, RMSEA = .067. Physical component items included fatigue, pain, and discomfort. Multivariate analyses indicated significant cross-stage differences for pros, cons, and self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the validity of the developed stage of change, 8-item decisional balance, and 6-item self-efficacy measures for psychosocial care. Clinicians could use these tools to address perceived cons of psychosocial care, including shame and self-efficacy (e.g., using psychosocial care despite pain). These scales may help treatment teams better address barriers to psychosocial care utilization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).