Cited by 198Cancer survivorship and careHealth Policy Implementation SciencePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Implementation of NCCN Distress Management Guidelines by Member Institutions

Open access
Jacobsen, Paul B., Ransom, Sean·2007·Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract

Up to half of all adults with cancer experience clinically significant psychological distress and much of this distress goes unrecognized and untreated. As part of an effort to improve the care of cancer patients, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed clinical practice guidelines for distress management that include recommendations about the evaluation and treatment of distress. These authors conducted a study to evaluate the implementation of these distress management guidelines by NCCN member institutions. The NCCN member institutions that treat adults were asked in April and May 2005 to describe their distress management practices, and 15 (83%) provided responses. Of these, 8 (53%) conduct routine distress screening for at least some patient groups, with 4 additional institutions (27%) pilot-testing screening strategies. However, only 20% of surveyed member institutions screened all patients as the guidelines recommend. In addition, whether institutions that conduct routine distress screening do so through standardized assessment methods is unclear, because 37.5% of institutions that conduct screening rely only on interviews to identify distressed patients. Findings suggest that most institutions consider screening patients' mental health concerns important and worthwhile, but that greater implementation of guideline recommendations is needed.

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.2007.0010

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Routine screening for distress is not carried out in most cancer care settings.

    “Routine screening for distress is not carried out in most cancer care settings [8].”

    From Psychological intervention targeting distress for cancer patients: a meta-analytic study investigating uptake and adherence. (2016) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results report that 8 of 15 responding NCCN institutions (53%) routinely screened at least some patients, so the paper does not show that most surveyed institutions carried out no routine screening. The Discussion reports that only 20% screened all patients; the claim would be supported if it specified universal screening, but it also generalizes beyond the NCCN institutions surveyed. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 16 · Cited by 198

Authors
Jacobsen, P. B., & Ransom, S.
Affiliations
Brigham Young University–Hawaii (US)
Venue
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Published
2007-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
99-103
ISSN
  • 1540-1405 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-1413
OpenAlex
W2138020378
Cited by
198
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 20
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
cancer-related distress, psychological distress, distress screening, NCCN guidelines, guideline implementation, mental health assessment, quality of cancer care
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health, Stress, Psychological, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence

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