Psychological distress screening tools for lung cancer patients V1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Nurse and patient perceptions of the feasibility of incorporating a screening tool for psychological distress into routine lung cancer care
IRAS ID
239563
Contact name
Patrick Cronin
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Research, Business and Innovation. Aberystwyth University
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 0 months, 1 days
Research summary
The central research question for this project is: what is the perceived impact on Clinical Nurse Specialist practice and lung cancer patient outcomes of formally screening for psychological distress?
Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer and has a major impact on the quality of life of those affected. Alongside the physical symptoms that are so commonly associated with cancer, it is critically important that the psychological distress also associated with cancer is not overlooked, as good psychological well-being is crucial to a person’s quality of life. The burden that this distress and other unmet needs have on the patient can often be overwhelming and detrimental to their recovery. Despite organisations such as Macmillan and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommending that screening for distress should be routine in all oncology units, it is often not commonplace. This is a familiar problem in the hospitals and oncology units around the Mid-Wales area.
Through the use of focus groups and semi-structured interviews with lung cancer patients and nurses, this study aims to gain an understanding of how individuals feel that their experience with the treatment would have been impacted by the use of a screening tool for psychological distress. A literature review has identified the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (EORTC QLQ-LC13) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L), as these two tools show the best psychometric properties for lung cancer-specific screening tools. This should also aid the identification of barriers to the implementation of screening tools, allowing for strategies to be developed that overcome these barriers and improve the implementation and willingness of nurses and patients to engage with the tool.
REC name
London - London Bridge Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
18/LO/0973
Date of REC Opinion
31 May 2018
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion