Purpose of reviewThe current review provides an overview of recent research and other initiatives aimed at increasing and/or systematizing screening for distress in cancer survivors. It is timely given an increasing drive internationally to implement distress screening as part of routine cancer care.Recent findingsScreening using brief validated tools is recommended and the single-item distress thermometer continues to be the international screening tool of choice. Although debate continues regarding the most appropriate cut-off distress thermometer score to identify clinically distressed patients, review of checked items from the accompanying problem list can pinpoint sources of distress, to inform targeted intervention. An integrated approach should include screening, and if required, assessment/referral and intervention. However, whilst distress screening is associated with some impact on referral, especially its timeliness, delivery of evidence-based treatments to address identified distress may be limited by patients declining help and a lack of support services.SummaryAlthough screening for distress in routine care holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing health system efficiency, its implementation across cancer services is variable. Further research is required to evaluate screening implementation and sustainability in routine care, as well as the feasibility of distress screening in long-term cancer survivors who are no longer in regular contact with cancer centres.
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care – Wolters Kluwer Health
Published: Mar 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud