CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 502Cancer survivorship and carePalliative and Oncologic CarePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The NCCN Guideline for Distress Management: A Case for Making Distress the Sixth Vital Sign

Open access
Holland, Jimmie C., Bultz, Barry D.·2007·Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2007.0003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Psychosocial care of patients has traditionally been seen as separate from routine medical care and has been criticized as being “soft” and lacking evidence. This traditional perspective continues in many settings, despite the fact that patients and families, when asked, state that emotional care is highly valued. The question of how to integrate psychosocial care into routine cancer care has also been an issue, partly because of the stigma associated with cancer. In 1997, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) established a multidisciplinary panel to examine this problem. 1 Because patient and physician attitudes toward pain can pose similar barriers to care as with distress, the panel used as a model the rating system for assessing pain that resulted in successful improvement of pain management in the United States. The rating system’s success seemed partly based on routinely using a single question to assess a patient’s pain: “How is your pain on a scale of 0 to 10?” The system uses a score of 5 or higher as the indication to reassess pain medications or refer the patient for more expert management. This system is widely used, and patient self-report of subjective symptoms is now accepted as appropriate and reliable. Pain has become the fifth vital sign, after pulse, respiration, blood pressure, and temperature, ensuring that it is evaluated as part of routine care. Drawing on this experience, the NCCN panel recommended a simple question to ask patients about psychosocial concerns. They found that distress was the best umbrella word to represent the range of emotional concerns patients with cancer experience and that it did not carry the stigma of other words sometimes used for emotional symptoms. Several studies have now validated the approach of asking, “How is your distress on a scale of 0 to 10?” and using a score of 4 or above as the trigger for further questions and possible referral to a psychosocial service. 2,3 In 2004, the Canadian Federal Government’s public health agency, Health Canada‐Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, approved “Emotional Distress as the 6th Vital Sign.” 4 We propose that this system should also be considered in the United States to ensure that psychosocial distress is routinely assessed as part of cancer care and managed according to the NCCN distress management guidelines. This commentary outlines the potential benefits that can accrue for patients, families, and the health care system. Over 2 years beginning in 1997, the NCCN’s multidisciplinary panel de

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.6004/jnccn.2007.0003

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Rebalance Focus Action Group. A position paper: screening key indicators in cancer patients: pain as a fifth vital sign and emotional distress as a sixth vital sign. Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control Bulletin 2005;7(Suppl):4.
  2. Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, et al. Rapid screen- ing for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer 1998;82:1904-1908.
  3. Bultz BD. Editorial: can we meet the challenge of change? Oncology Exchange 2004;2:3.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 502

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Holland, J. C., & Bultz, B. D.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
ORCID
Bultz, Barry D.
Venue
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Publisher
Harborside Press, LLC
Published
2007-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
3-7
ISSN
  • 1540-1405 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-1413
DOI
10.6004/jnccn.2007.0003
OpenAlex
W1837710968
Cited by
502
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 26
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
psychosocial distress, distress management, NCCN guidelines, cancer care, emotional distress screening, pain assessment, patient self-report
MeSH terms
Humans, Mass Screening, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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