Cited by 19Cancer survivorship and careMental Health Treatment and AccessPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient and general practitioner preferences for the treatment of depression in patients with cancer: How, who, and where?

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to determine and compare patient and general practitioner (GP) preferences for the treatment of depression in patients with cancer.Methods A treatment preference questionnaire was completed by 100 patients who had been diagnosed with both cancer and major depressive disorder and by 86 GPs who had had experience of at least 1 patient with cancer and depression. Participants were asked to rank options for how depression should be treated, who should deliver the treatment, and where treatment should occur.Results The top three preferences of patients and GPs for how depression should be treated differed (P<.001). Patients preferred talking treatment alone, whereas GPs preferred a combination of drug and talking treatment. Both patients and GPs preferred treatment to be given by the GP, with older patients having a stronger preference for this. Counselors and cancer nurses were also popular preferences; mental heath professionals were unpopular. The preferred place of treatment was primary care for both patients and GPs, although many patients preferred treatment in the cancer center.Conclusion Effective and acceptable services for depressed cancer patients need to take patients and GP preferences into account. A model of service that allows a choice of initial treatment modality and collaborative care between primary care and cancer center nurse would meet this requirement.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.03.008

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hodges, L., Butcher, I., Kleiboer, A., McHugh, G., Murray, G., Walker, J., Wilson, R., & Sharpe, M.
Affiliations
Royal Edinburgh Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Hodges, Laura
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
399-402
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143738590
Cited by
19
References
9
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
cancer-related depression, treatment preferences, patient preferences, major depressive disorder, psychotherapy, antidepressants, treatment options, treatment setting, primary care, cancer centers, collaborative care, oncology nurses, elderly patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antidepressive Agents, Combined Modality Therapy, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Patient Care Team, Patient Participation, Personality Inventory, Physician-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, Referral and Consultation, Sick Role, Patient Preference

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