Cited by 180Cancer survivorship and careMental Health Treatment and AccessPalliative and Oncologic Care

Why do oncology outpatients who report emotional distress decline help?

Clover, Kerrie Ann, Mitchell, Alex J., Britton, Ben, Carter, Gregory·2015·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Many patients who experience distress do not seek help, and little is known about the reasons for this. We explored the reasons for declining help among patients who had significant emotional distress. METHODS: Data were collected through QUICATOUCH screening at an Australian hospital. Oncology outpatients scoring 4 or more on the Distress Thermometer were asked if they would 'like help' with their distress. Those who declined help were asked their reasons. Demographic variables and a clinical measure of anxiety and depression (PSYCH-6) were used to identify factors associated with reasons for declining help. RESULTS: Of 311 patients with significant distress, 221 (71%) declined help. The most common reasons were 'I prefer to manage myself' (n = 99, 46%); 'already receiving help' (n = 52, 24%) and 'my distress is not severe enough' (n = 50, 23%). Younger patients and women were more likely to decline help and were more likely to already be receiving help. Distress score and PSYCH-6 scores were significantly lower among patients who rated their distress as not severe enough to require help. Nevertheless, there were patients who had maximal scores on distress and PSYCH in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Two common patient barriers to help with distress are a preference for self-help and a belief that distress is not sufficiently severe to warrant intervention. These beliefs were held by a sizeable proportion of individuals who reported very high levels of distress. Qualitative research and subsequent interventions for overcoming these barriers are required to obtain the most benefit from distress screening programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.3729

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clover, K. A., Mitchell, A. J., Britton, B., & Carter, G.
Affiliations
  • Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital (AU)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Clover, Kerrie Ann
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-11
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
812-818
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W1950968949
Cited by
180
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Cancer Institute NSW
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
emotional distress, help-seeking, help-seeking barriers, cancer outpatients, cancer patients, self-management, anxiety, depression, distress screening
MeSH terms
Help-Seeking Behavior, Age Factors, Aged, Anxiety, Attitude to Health, Australia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Outpatients, Severity of Illness Index, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Refusal

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