PerD in older hospital patients is frequent, appears to be associated with adverse outcomes and may account for the poor prognosis of delirium in this population. These findings have potentially important implications for clinical practice and research.

Background: Mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) and supportive expressive group therapy (SET) are two well-validated psychosocial interventions, but they have not been directly compared, and little is known about long-term outcomes. This comparative effectiveness study measured the effects of these two interventions immediately following the groups and for 1 year thereafter in distressed breast cancer survivors.Methods: Two hundred fifty-two distressed Stage I-III breast cancer survivors were randomized into either MBCR or SET. Women completed questionnaires addressing mood, stress symptoms, quality of life, social support, spirituality and post-traumatic growth before and after the interventions, and 6 and 12 months later.Results: Immediately following the intervention, women in MBCR reported greater reduction in mood disturbance (primarily fatigue, anxiety and confusion) and stress symptoms including tension, sympathetic arousal and cognitive symptoms than those in SET. They also reported increased emotional and functional quality of life, emotional, affective and positive social support, spirituality (feelings of peace and meaning in life) and post-traumatic growth (appreciation for life and ability to see new possibilities) relative to those in SET, who also improved to a lesser degree on many outcomes. Effect sizes of the time × group interactions were small to medium, and most benefits were maintained over 12 months of follow-up.Conclusions: This study is the first and largest to demonstrate sustained benefits of MBCR in distressed breast cancer survivors relative to an active control. MBCR was superior to SET for improving psychological well-being with lasting benefits over 1 year, suggesting these women gained long-lasting and efficacious tools to cope with cancer.

Background: This randomised controlled trial examined the impact of screening for distress followed by two different triage methods on clinically relevant outcomes over a 12-month period. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients attending a large tertiary cancer centre were randomised to one of the two conditions: (1) screening with computerised triage or (2) screening with personalised triage, both following standardised clinical triage algorithms. Patients completed the Distress Thermometer, Pain and Fatigue Thermometers, the Psychological Screen for Cancer (PSSCAN) Part C and questions on resource utilisation at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: In all, 3133 patients provided baseline data (67% of new patients); with 1709 (54.5%) retained at 12 months (15.4% deceased). Mixed effects models revealed that both groups experienced significant decreases in distress, anxiety, depression, pain and fatigue over time. People receiving personalised triage and people reporting higher symptom burden were more likely to access services, which was subsequently related to greater decreases in distress, anxiety and depression. Women may benefit more from personalised triage, whereas men may benefit more from a computerised triage model. Conclusion: Screening for distress is a viable intervention that has the potential to decrease symptom burden up to 12 months post diagnosis. The best model of screening may be to incorporate personalised triage for patients indicating high levels of depression and anxiety while providing computerised triage for others.

BackgroundVery few studies examine the longitudinal prevalence of problems and the awareness or use of clinical programs by patients who report these problems. Of the studies that examine age, gender and marital status as predictors of a range of patient outcomes, none examines the interactions between these demographic variables. This study examined the typical trajectory of common practical and psychosocial problems endorsed over 12 months in a usual-care sample of cancer outpatients. Specifically, we examined whether marital status, sex, age, and their interactions predicted these trajectories. We did not actively triage or refer patients in this study in order to examine the natural course of problem reports.MethodsPatients completed baseline screening (N = 1196 of 1707 approached) and the sample included more men (N = 696) than women (N = 498), average age 61.1 years. The most common diagnoses were gastrointestinal (27.1%), prostate (19.2%), skin (11.1%) and gynecological (9.2%). Among other measures, patients completed a Common Problem Checklist and Psychosocial Resources Use questions at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months using paper and pencil surveys.ResultsResults indicated that patients reported psychosocial problems more often than practical and both decreased significantly over time. Younger single patients reported more practical problems than those in committed relationships. Younger patients and women of all ages reported more psychosocial problems. Among a number of interesting interactions, for practical problems, single older patients improved more; whereas among married people, younger patients improved more. For psychosocial problems we found that older female patients improved more than younger females, but among males, it was younger patients who improved more. Young single men and women reported the most past-and future-use of services.ConclusionsYounger women are particularly vulnerable to experiencing practical and psychosocial problems when diagnosed with cancer, but being married protects these younger women. Marriage appeared to buffer reports of both practical and psychosocial problems, and led to less awareness and use of services. Unexpectedly, young men reported the highest use of psychosocial services. This study informs clinical program development with information on these risk groups.