Institutional capacity to provide psychosocial oncology support services: A report from the Association of Oncology Social Work

• Published in: Cancer Vol. 122; no. 12; pp. 1937 - 1945
• Main Authors: Zebrack, Brad, Kayser, Karen, Padgett, Lynne, Sundstrom, Laura, Jobin, Chad, Nelson, Krista, Fineberg, Iris C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 15.06.2016
• Subjects: cancer; capacity building; Female; Humans; Male; Medical Oncology - methods; Neoplasms - psychology; Neoplasms - therapy; Psychology - methods; psychosocial; Social Support; social work; Social Work - methods; standard of care; psychosocial; standard of care; cancer; social work; capacity building
• ISSN: 0008-543X; 1097-0142
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30016

BACKGROUND This study reports cancer‐treating institutions' capacity to deliver comprehensive psychosocial support services. METHODS Oncology care providers at 60 cancer‐treating institutions completed surveys assessing the capacity of their institutions to provide psychosocial care. Capacity was assessed with the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix (CPCM) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Scores represented individuals' perceptions of their cancer program's performance with respect to 10 fundamental elements of psychosocial care. RESULTS Among 2134 respondents, 62% reported a mid‐level capacity for ≥5 of 10 CPCM items. In comparison with other types of cancer programs (eg, NCI‐designated, academic, or comprehensive centers), providers at community cancer programs reported a significantly greater capacity with respect to patient‐provider communication, psychosocial needs assessment, and continuity in the delivery of psychosocial care over time. Nurses and primary medical providers reported a significantly lower capacity for linking patients and families with needed psychosocial services within their respective cancer programs. They also reported a significantly higher capacity for conducting follow‐up, re‐evaluations, and adjustments of psychosocial treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS Cancer programs are performing moderately well in terms of communicating to patients the importance of psychosocial care, identifying patient psychosocial needs, and referring patients and families to psychosocial services. They are doing less well with respect to the provision of that care over time. Findings suggest that gaps in psychosocial service capacity are a function of patient, provider, and system characteristics. These results may be useful in formulating strategies to enhance psychosocial care delivery. Cancer 2016;122:1937–45. © 2016 American Cancer Society. The results of this study suggest that cancer programs in the United States are performing moderately well in terms of the provision of psychosocial care. Variations in psychosocial service capacity appear to be a function of patient, provider, and system characteristics. See also pages 1807‐8.