Search

Objective: Few evidence‐based interventions addressing high levels of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) have been implemented. Understanding how these might be implemented is crucial to bridge the research‐practice gap. This study investigated the feasibility of implementing the blended Survivors' Worries of Recurrent Disease (SWORD) intervention in real‐world psycho‐oncology practice. Methods: SWORD was offered for 15 months (2021–2022) as the standard care for clinical FCR in a university hospital, a general hospital, and psycho‐oncological center. We evaluated using a mixed‐methods design six feasibility outcomes based on Bowen's framework: demand, limited effectiveness, degree of execution, acceptability, practicality, and integration. Anonymous data were collected for all oncology patients on referral. Study participants completed questionnaires before and after treatment, including the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS‐6) as the primary measure of effectiveness. Qualitative data included interviews with patients and psychologists, and field notes. Results: Regarding demand, 81 of 644 patients referred (13%) were eligible for SWORD. The uptake of SWORD was 79% (n = 63/80) and the completion rate 73% (n = 46/63). SWORD was effective in reducing FCR (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.694). Regarding execution, a variability in the length, planning and number of treatment sessions was found between different settings. Adherence to the treatment manual's content was high (89%). Regarding acceptability, most patients were satisfied with SWORD (average 8.2/10) and psychologists valued the blended format. Psychologists reported SWORD was practical to deliver given their knowledge and skills. Although differences between settings were found, SWORD integrated well into practice. Referral for FCR and a reluctance to contract new eHealth providers were barriers for implementation. Conclusions: Despite differences between healthcare settings, the implementation of SWORD was evaluated well. The feasibility of SWORD in different settings should inform a national implementation strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common and burdensome to patients, but often remains undetected. Oncology professionals report need for tools to improve FCR detection in routine care. Oncology care guidelines recommend the Distress Thermometer (DT) for distress screening, but it has not been validated for FCR. This study evaluated the capacity of the DT and accompanying problem list to detect FCR. Methods: Amalgamated data of two studies with 149 breast cancer and 74 colorectal cancer survivors were used. We evaluated the Dutch DT including the DT score, problem list fears item and emotional domain score using Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses. The Dutch Cancer Worry Scale‐6 (CWS‐6) was used as reference measure, with validated cut‐off scores ≥10 and ≥12 for high FCR. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Results: The DT score showed poor performance in discriminating between low and high FCR. The recommended cut‐off ≥4 had low sensitivity (65% for CWS‐6≥10; 72% for CWS‐6 ≥12) and specificity (67% and 58%). No other cut‐off had an acceptable combination of sensitivity and specificity. The fears item had low sensitivity (29% and 44.9%) and high specificity (95% and 94%). The emotional domain score had fair performance in discriminating between low and high FCR but there was no cut‐off with acceptable sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion: The DT as currently recommended in oncology care guidelines is not suitable to effectively detect FCR in routine care. To improve patients access to psychosocial care, it should be investigated how FCR‐specific measures can be integrated in oncology practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]