Exploratory study quantifies psycho-oncological interventions in acute cancer care, suggesting tailored approaches for patient needs.
Background A psycho‐oncological service (POS) is mandatory for certified cancer centers in Germany. However, research on what specific interventions are used in acute cancer care is lacking. Aims The aim of our study was to quantify the use and context‐specific application patterns of psycho‐oncological interventions used during psycho‐oncological contacts. Methods This is an exploratory retrospective cross‐sectional single‐center study, analyzing data from the POS from the University Hospital in Erlangen from the year 2023. In the hospital's digital documentation system, each psycho‐oncological session is recorded and the applied interventions are specified according to a self‐developed taxonomy. We analyzed the number and type of applied interventions and examined their association with gender, age, cancer entity and tumor situation. Results In 2023, 2636 patients had 5615 psycho‐oncological contacts. Interventions most frequently applied in sessions lasting more than 10 min were Exploration of the current state, Establishing the relationship, Validating, Normalizing and Working on resources . Normalization was more often used for female than male patients. Psycho‐education , Establishing the relationship, Exploration of current state , Counseling and Normalizing were more frequently applied for younger patients. Existential methods were used predominantly for patients with metastasized initial disease. Patients with hematological cancer had the highest rates for most interventions. Conclusions There are interventions that are inherent to nearly all psycho‐oncological contacts, forming the core components of psycho‐oncological contacts. Interventions less frequently used seem to be applied according to the patients' needs. Psycho‐oncological support therefore means flexible utilization of therapeutic interventions, making it a relevant part of comprehensive oncological treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lieb et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: