Objective Distress and depression are prevalent in cancer patients throughout survivorship and are associated with adverse outcomes. This study examines the association between outpatient psycho‐oncology treatment and distress and depression in cancer patients. Methods This is a prospective observational study of adult patients with a primary diagnosis of cancer referred for psycho‐oncology services. Patients were seen for two psycho‐oncology visits in a single clinical setting with various qualified providers. Patients completed the distress thermometer and problem checklist (DT + PL) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) at the beginning of their first and second visits and repeated the DT at the end of these visits. Results The analysis included 174 patients seen once and 69 patients seen twice. Patients were seen on average 2.5 years after diagnosis. Both visits were associated with significant reductions in distress (5.56 before and 3.85 after for visit 1, p < 0.001; 4.92 before and 3.43 after for visit 2, p < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in distress from baseline to after visit 2 (p < 0.001). Depression scores significantly decreased from the first to second visits (8.79–7.57; p = 0.002). Conclusions Psycho‐oncology services were associated with significant reductions in distress and depression, with scores after services no longer meeting criteria for clinically significant distress (DT scores ≥ 4) and depression (PHQ‐9 scores ≥ 8) as they did at baseline. Reductions in distress and depression were not significantly associated with provider type, intervention or timing of diagnosis. These findings support the use of psycho‐oncology services in cancer patients throughout survivorship.

No abstract

Home education, also known colloquially as home schooling, has been on the rise for the past twodecades. Estimates of the number home educated students range from 1.7% to 3% of thestudent population (Blok, 2003). It has gained legitimacy as noted by its evolution from beingprohibited in 30 states in 1980 to now being legal in all fifty states (Blok, 2003). Probably thegreatest sign of this new legitimacy is its general acceptance and positive coverage in the mediawhere home education is presented as a viable alternative to traditional schooling. Often storiespresent some exceptional and phenomenal successes, which are portrayed against a backdrop ofpublic school failings (Medlin, 2000).

No abstract

No abstract