Search

To compare prevalence rates of mental disorders in patients with cancer and general population controls. In two stratified nationally representative surveys, the 12-month prevalence of mental disorders was assessed in 2141 patients with cancer and 4883 general population controls by the standardized Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We determined odds ratios (ORs) to compare the odds for mental disorders (combined and subtypes) in cancer patients with age- and gender-matched controls. The 12-month prevalences rate for any mental disorder was significantly higher in patients with cancer compared to controls (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14–1.45). Prevalence rates were at least two times higher for unipolar mood disorders (major depression: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.71–2.51; dysthymia: OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.13–4.02) and mental disorders due to a general medical condition (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.32–4.71). There was no significant elevation for anxiety disorders overall (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81–1.11). Mildly elevated prevalence rates emerged for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11–2.23) and social phobia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07–2.31), while specific phobia (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67–1.00) and agoraphobia (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33–0.73) were significantly less frequent in cancer. While elevated depression rates reinforce the need for its systematic diagnosis and treatment, lower prevalences were unexpected given previous evidence. Whether realistic illness-related fears and worries contribute to lower occurrence of anxiety disorders with excessive fears in cancer may be of interest to future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Close relationships can be strained by losses related to independence, autonomy, and separation after diagnosis of severe illness. The perceived quality of their close relationships affects individuals' psychological adaptation in this context. We explored the level of perceived relatedness and its impact on demoralization and death acceptance. We further examined a possible protective effect of perceived relatedness on the association between tumor stage and death acceptance.Methods: For this observational study, we consecutively recruited gynecology outpatients and general surgery inpatients at the University Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and oncological inpatients at the LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Germany. At baseline, 307 patients (age M = 59.6, 69% female, 69% advanced cancer) participated. At 6- and 12-month (T3) follow-up, 213 and 153 patients responded, respectively. Patients completed self-report questionnaires including a modified version of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory assessing perceived relatedness, the Life Attitude Profile-Revised assessing death acceptance, the Demoralization Scale, and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale assessing symptom burden. We calculated multiple linear regression analyses controlling for demographic and disease-related factors.Results: Participants reported a stronger perceived relatedness at baseline (M = 3.04, SE = 0.03, possible range 0-4) than at T3 (M = 2.93, SE = 0.04; p = 0.02). Perceived relatedness significantly predicted lower demoralization at T3 but did not moderate the relationship between tumor stage and demoralization. Apart from male gender, none of the predictor or moderator variables had a significant impact on death acceptance at T3.Conclusions: The strong impact of perceived relatedness on existential distress emphasizes the importance of strengthening interpersonal relationships within psychosocial interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACTObjective:The prevalence of depression as well as adjustment and anxiety disorders is high in advanced cancer patients, and research exploring intraindividual factors leading to high psychological distress is underrepresented. Cancer patients' feelings about security and trust in their healthcare providers have a significant influence on how they deal with their disease. The perception of social support is affected by patients' attachment styles and influences their reactions to feelings of dependency and loss of control. We therefore aimed to explore attachment and its association with psychological distress in patients with advanced cancer.Method: We obtained data from the baseline measurements of a randomized controlled trial in advanced cancer patients. Patients were sampled from the university medical centers of Hamburg and Leipzig, Germany. The main outcome measures included the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Death and Dying Distress Scale, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, and the Experience in Close Relationships Scale for assessing attachment insecurity.Results: A total of 162 patients were included. We found that 64% of patients were insecurely attached (fearful-avoidant 31%, dismissing 17%, and preoccupied 16%). A dismissing attachment style was associated with more physical symptoms but did not predict psychological distress. A fearful-avoidant attachment style significantly predicted higher death anxiety and depression, whereas preoccupied attachment predicted higher death anxiety only. Overall, insecure attachment contributed to the prediction of depression (10%) and death anxiety (14%).Significance Of Results: The concept of attachment plays a relevant role in advanced cancer patients' mental health. Healthcare providers can benefit from knowledge of advanced cancer patients' attachment styles and how they relate to specific mental distress. Developing a better understanding of patients' reactions to feelings of dependency and distressing emotions can help us to develop individually tailored advanced cancer care programs and psychotherapeutic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inter-professional teamwork is a prominent factor in quality of care and may lead to improved patient safety. Although team members' points of view are highly relevant when trying to improve inpatient procedures, there is a lack of systematic assessment of their perceptions. Therefore, study aims were to explore inter-professional teamwork, safety-related behavior, and patient safety in German hospitals from team members' point of view. Furthermore, we wanted to examine the association between inter-professional teamwork and safety-related behavior as well as the association between inter-professional teamwork and patient safety., Methods: We used cross-sectional pre-intervention data of a multicenter longitudinal study (German KOMPAS project). We gathered descriptive statistics for sample characteristics and to describe the current state of inter-professional teamwork, safety-related behavior, and patient safety. We used one-way variance analyses to assess differences between groups, and linear regression analyses to examine the association between inter-professional teamwork and the outcomes safety-related behavior, and patient safety., Results: 326 inpatient care team members participated in the study. Participants perceived a moderate to high level of inter-professional teamwork, and a moderate level of patient safety. Moreover, they reached rather high values in safety-related behavior. Professional group, work experience, and period of employment had an impact on the perceptions of inter-professional teamwork, and patient safety. Higher inter-professional teamwork was associated with better patient safety. We did not find an association between inter-professional teamwork and safety-related behavior., Conclusions: Based on the association between inter-professional teamwork and patient safety, we recommend the implementation of team interventions. Because professional group, period of employment, and work experience had an impact on the perceptions of inter-professional teamwork and patient safety, we suggest future qualitative research to explore reasons for caregivers' critical evaluation. Moreover, we recommend longitudinal studies to reveal causal relationships, and subsequently to determine areas of improvement for a safer health care., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: There are only a few valid instruments measuring couples' communication in patients with cancer for German speaking countries. The Couple Communication Scale (CCS) represents an established instrument to assess couples' communication. However, there is no evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the German version of the CCS until now and the assumed one factor structure of the CCS was not verified for patients with advanced cancer yet., Method: The CCS was validated as a part of the study "Managing cancer and living meaningfully" (CALM) on N=136 patients with advanced cancer (≥18 years, UICC-state III/IV). The psychometric properties of the scale were calculated (factor reliability, item reliability, average variance extracted [DEV]) and a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted (Maximum Likelihood Estimation). The concurrent validity was tested against symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7), depression (BDI-II) and attachment insecurity (ECR-M16)., Results: In the confirmatory factor analysis, the one factor structure showed a low, but acceptable model fit and explained on average 49% of every item's variance (DEV). The CCS has an excellent internal consistency (Cronbachs α=0,91) and was negatively associated with attachment insecurity (ECR-M16: anxiety: r=- 0,55, p<0,01; avoidance: r=- 0,42, p<0,01) as well as with anxiety (GAD-7: r=- 0,20, p<0,05) and depression (BDI-II: r=- 0,27, p<0,01)., Conclusion: The CCS is a reliable and valid instrument measuring couples' communication in patients with advanced cancer., Competing Interests: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Although psycho-oncological interventions have been shown to significantly reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression and enhance quality of life, a substantial number of patients with advanced cancer do not receive psycho-oncological interventions tailored to their individual situation. Given the lack of reliable data on the efficacy of psycho-oncological interventions in palliative care settings, we aim to examine the efficacy of a brief, manualized individual psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer: Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM). CALM aims to reduce depression and death anxiety, to strengthen communication with health care providers, and to enhance hope and meaning in life. We adapted the intervention for German cancer care settings., Methods/design: We use a single-blinded randomized-controlled trial design with two treatment conditions: intervention group (IG, CALM) and control group (CG). Patients in the CG receive a usual non-manualized supportive psycho-oncological intervention (SPI). Patients are randomized between the IG and CG and assessed at baseline (t0), after three (t1) and after 6 months (t2). We include patients with a malignant solid tumor who have tumor stages of III or IV (UICC classification). Patients who are included in the study are at least 18 years old, speak German fluently, score greater than or equal to nine on the PHQ-9 or/and greater than or equal to five on the Distress Thermometer. It is further necessary that there is no evidence of severe cognitive impairments. We measure depression, anxiety, distress, quality of life, demoralization, symptom distress, fatigue as well as spiritual well-being, posttraumatic growth and close relationship experiences using validated questionnaires. We hypothesize that patients in the IG will show a significantly lower level of depression 6 months after baseline compared to patients in the CG. We further hypothesize a significant reduction in anxiety and fatigue as well as significant improvements in psychological and spiritual well-being, meaning and post-traumatic growth in the IG compared to CG 6 months after baseline., Discussion: Our study will contribute important statistical evidence on whether CALM can reduce depression and existential distress in a German sample of advanced and highly distressed cancer patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02051660.