Systematic screening and assessment of psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2019-03, Vol.3 (3), p.CD012387
• Main Authors: Schouten, Bojoura, Avau, Bert, Bekkering, Geertruida Trudy E, Vankrunkelsven, Patrick, Mebis, Jeroen, Hellings, Johan, Van Hecke, Ann
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 'ORPHAN' TOPICS CURRENTLY BEING ADDRESSED; Cancer; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Health; Needs Assessment; Neoplasms - diagnosis; Neoplasms - psychology; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stress, Psychological - diagnosis
• ISSN: 1469-493X; 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012387.pub2

Receiving a diagnosis of cancer and the subsequent related treatments can have a significant impact on an individual's physical and psychosocial well-being. To ensure that cancer care addresses all aspects of well-being, systematic screening for distress and supportive care needs is recommended. Appropriate screening could help support the integration of psychosocial approaches in daily routines in order to achieve holistic cancer care and ensure that the specific care needs of people with cancer are met and that the organisation of such care is optimised. To examine the effectiveness and safety of screening of psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer. To explore the intervention characteristics that contribute to the effectiveness of these screening interventions. We searched five electronic databases in January 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched five trial registers and screened the contents of relevant journals, citations, and references to find published and unpublished trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs) that studied the effect of screening interventions addressing the psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer compared to usual care. These screening interventions could involve self-reporting of people with a patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or a semi-structured interview with a screening interventionist, and comprise a solitary screening intervention or screening with guided actions. We excluded studies that evaluated screening integrated as an element in more complex interventions (e.g. therapy, coaching, full care pathways, or care programmes). Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed methodological quality for each included study using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for NRCTs. Due to the high level of heterogeneity in the included studies, only three were included in meta-analysis. Results of the remaining 23 studies were analysed narratively. We included 26 studies (18 RCTs and 8 NRCTs) with sample sizes of 41 to 1012 participants, involving a total of 7654 adults with cancer. Two studies included only men or women; all other studies included both sexes. For most studies people with breast, lung, head and neck, colorectal, prostate cancer, or severa