Cited by 99Cancer survivorship and careChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Current approaches to managing fear of cancer recurrence; a descriptive survey of psychosocial and clinical health professionals

Thewes, B., Brebach, R., Dzidowska, M., Rhodes, P., Sharpe, L., Butow, P.·2014·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objective: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common amongst cancer survivors and help with this problem is the most frequently reported unmet need in this population. This study investigated how FCR is perceived and managed by clinical health professionals (medical and nursing staff) and psychosocial professionals in oncology settings. Methods: Clinical health professionals and psychosocial professionals in oncology settings received emailed invitations from their professional organisation to participate in an online survey. Results: Data from 77 clinical health professionals and 64 psychosocial professionals indicate that FCR is perceived as common and challenging to manage. Thirty‐one percent of psychosocial professionals estimated FCR is present in >50% of cancer survivors seen in their practise. Only a minority (21%) of clinical staff reported always referring patients with high levels of FCR to psychosocial support. Strategies for managing FCR differed considerably amongst psychosocial professionals, and most reported that aspects of acceptance and commitment therapy and/or cognitive behaviour therapy were helpful. Greater than 99% of participants were interested in training to help patients manage FCR. Conclusions: Fear of cancer recurrence is commonly identified in oncology settings and a common focus of discussion in follow‐up care. However, patients with high levels of FCR are not routinely referred to psychosocial staff, and barriers to referral to psychosocial care should be investigated. The diversity of approaches reported by psychosocial professionals suggests lack of consensus regarding management of FCR, indicating that the development effective, theoretical‐based intervention and evidence‐based intervention for FCR is a matter of priority. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.3423

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thewes, B., Brebach, R., Dzidowska, M., Rhodes, P., Sharpe, L., & Butow, P.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Thewes, B.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
390-396
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W1556460072
Cited by
99
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
fear of cancer recurrence, cancer survivors, psychosocial support, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, unmet needs, health professional perceptions, psychosocial interventions
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Fear, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Oncology Nursing, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Psychology, Social Work, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Survivors, Practice Patterns, Nurses', Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review