Stepped care targeting psychological distress in head and neck and lung cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Psychological distress is common in cancer survivors. Although there is some evidence on effectiveness of psychosocial care in distressed cancer patients, referral rate is low. Lack of adequate screening instruments in oncology settings and insufficient availability of traditional models of psychosocial care are the main barriers. A stepped care approach has the potential to improve the efficiency of psychosocial care. The aim of the study described herein is to evaluate efficacy of a stepped care strategy targeting psychological distress in cancer survivors.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The study is designed as a randomized clinical trial with 2 treatment arms: a stepped care intervention programme versus care as usual. Patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) or lung cancer (LC) are screened for distress using OncoQuest, a computerized touchscreen system. After stratification for tumour (HNC vs. LC) and stage (stage I/II vs. III/IV), 176 distressed patients are randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group will follow a stepped care model with 4 evidence based steps: 1. Watchful waiting, 2. Guided self-help via Internet or a booklet, 3. Problem Solving Treatment administered by a specialized nurse, and 4. Specialized psychological intervention or antidepressant medication. In the control group, patients receive care as usual which most often is a single interview or referral to specialized intervention. Primary outcome is the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Secondary outcome measures are a clinical level of depression or anxiety (CIDI), quality of life (EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HN35, QLQ-LC13), patient satisfaction with care (EORTC QLQ-PATSAT), and costs (health care utilization and work loss (TIC-P and PRODISQ modules)). Outcomes are evaluated before and after intervention and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Stepped care is a system of delivering and monitoring treatments, such that effective, yet least resource-intensive, treatment is delivered to patients first. The main aim of a stepped care approach is to simplify the patient pathway, provide access to more patients and to improve patient well-being and cost reduction by directing, where appropriate, patients to low cost (self-)management before high cost specialist services.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NTR1868</p

Gender Dysphoria and Co-Existing Psychosis: Review and Four Case Examples of Successful Gender Affirmative Treatment

Purpose: Controversy exists as to if, and when, gender affirmative (GA) treatment should be offered to individuals with gender dysphoria (GD) and co-existing psychosis. Concerns exist regarding a high risk of misdiagnosis, regret afterward due to impulsive decision making, and deterioration of psychotic symptoms. This case series aims at extending the sparse literature on GA treatment in this population by identifying challenges in diagnosis and treatment and offering recommendations to overcome them. Case Series: The authors present case descriptions of two transgender men and two transgender women in the age range of 29-57 years with a diagnosis of GD and a schizophrenia-related diagnosis. All had undergone GA treatment with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. The gender diagnosis was complicated by the fact that feelings of GD were only shared after the onset of psychosis, and GA treatment was hampered by the persistence of mild psychotic symptoms despite antipsychotic treatment. Close communication with the psychosis treating clinicians proved useful to address these problems. GA treatment was paralleled by a stabilization of psychotic symptoms, and adherence to and satisfaction with the therapy was high. Conclusion: These case examples show that GA treatment is possible and safe in this vulnerable population

Cost-Utility of Stepped Care Targeting Psychological Distress in Patients With Head and Neck or Lung Cancer

Purpose A stepped care (SC) program in which an effective yet least resource-intensive treatment is delivered to patients first and followed, when necessary, by more resource-intensive treatments was found to be effective in improving distress levels of patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer. Information on the value of this program for its cost is now called for. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the SC program compared with care-as-usual (CAU) in patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer who have psychological distress. Patients and Methods In total, 156 patients were randomly assigned to SC or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality-of-life data during the intervention or control period and 12 months of follow-up were calculated by using Trimbos and Institute of Medical Technology Assessment Cost Questionnaire for Psychiatry, Productivity and Disease Questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimension measures and data from the hospital information system. The SC program's value for the cost was investigated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results After imputation of missing data, mean cumulative costs were -€3,950 (95% CI, -€8,158 to -€190) lower, and mean number of QALYs was 0.116 (95% CI, 0.005 to 0.227) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. The intervention group had a probability of 96% that cumulative QALYs were higher and cumulative costs were lower than in the control group. Four additional analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of this finding, and they found that the intervention group had a probability of 84% to 98% that cumulative QALYs were higher and a probability of 91% to 99% that costs were lower than in the control group. Conclusion SC is highly likely to be cost-effective; the number of QALYs was higher and cumulative costs were lower for SC compared with CAU

Cost-Utility of Stepped Care Targeting Psychological Distress in Patients With Head and Neck or Lung Cancer

Purpose A stepped care (SC) program in which an effective yet least resource-intensive treatment is delivered to patients first and followed, when necessary, by more resource-intensive treatments was found to be effective in improving distress levels of patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer. Information on the value of this program for its cost is now called for. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the SC program compared with care-as-usual (CAU) in patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer who have psychological distress. Patients and Methods In total, 156 patients were randomly assigned to SC or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality-of-life data during the intervention or control period and 12 months of follow-up were calculated by using Trimbos and Institute of Medical Technology Assessment Cost Questionnaire for Psychiatry, Productivity and Disease Questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimension measures and data from the hospital information system. The SC program's value for the cost was investigated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results After imputation of missing data, mean cumulative costs were -€3,950 (95% CI, -€8,158 to -€190) lower, and mean number of QALYs was 0.116 (95% CI, 0.005 to 0.227) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. The intervention group had a probability of 96% that cumulative QALYs were higher and cumulative costs were lower than in the control group. Four additional analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of this finding, and they found that the intervention group had a probability of 84% to 98% that cumulative QALYs were higher and a probability of 91% to 99% that costs were lower than in the control group. Conclusion SC is highly likely to be cost-effective; the number of QALYs was higher and cumulative costs were lower for SC compared with CAU

Flow and mass transfer around a core-shell reservoir

International audienc

Collaboration around rare bone diseases leads to the unique organizational incentive of the Amsterdam Bone Center

In the field of rare bone diseases in particular, a broad care team of specialists embedded in multidisciplinary clinical and research environment is essential to generate new therapeutic solutions and approaches to care. Collaboration among clinical and research departments within a University Medical Center is often difficult to establish, and may be hindered by competition and non-equivalent cooperation inherent in a hierarchical structure. Here we describe the “collaborative organizational model” of the Amsterdam Bone Center (ABC), which emerged from and benefited the rare bone disease team. This team is often confronted with pathologically complex and under-investigated diseases. We describe the benefits of this model that still guarantees the autonomy of each team member, but combines and focuses our collective expertise on a clear shared goal, enabling us to capture synergistic and innovative opportunities for the patient, while avoiding self-interest and possible harmful competition

Collaboration Around Rare Bone Diseases Leads to the Unique Organizational Incentive of the Amsterdam Bone Center

In the field of rare bone diseases in particular, a broad care team of specialists embedded in multidisciplinary clinical and research environment is essential to generate new therapeutic solutions and approaches to care. Collaboration among clinical and research departments within a University Medical Center is often difficult to establish, and may be hindered by competition and non-equivalent cooperation inherent in a hierarchical structure. Here we describe the “collaborative organizational model” of the Amsterdam Bone Center (ABC), which emerged from and benefited the rare bone disease team. This team is often confronted with pathologically complex and under-investigated diseases. We describe the benefits of this model that still guarantees the autonomy of each team member, but combines and focuses our collective expertise on a clear shared goal, enabling us to capture synergistic and innovative opportunities for the patient, while avoiding self-interest and possible harmful competition