The Role of Telemedicine for Psychological Support for Oncological Patients Who Have Received Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In our radiation departments, all patients received psycho-oncological support during RT and during follow-up. Based on the latter, the aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the role of tele-visits and in-person psychological support for cancer patients after RT, and to report a descriptive analysis pointing out the needs of psychosocial intervention in a radiation department during radiation treatment. METHODS: According to our institutional care management, all patients receiving RT were prospectively enrolled to receive charge-free assessment of their cognitive, emotional and physical states and psycho-oncological support during treatment. For the whole population who accepted the psychological support during RT, a descriptive analysis was reported. For all patients who agreed to be followed up by a psycho-oncologist, at the end of RT, a retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences between tele-consultations (video-call or telephone) and on-site psychological visits. Patients were followed up by on-site psychological visit (Group-OS) or tele-consult (Group-TC) visit. For each group, to evaluate anxiety, depression and distress, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), Distress Thermometer and Brief COPE (BC) were used. RESULTS: From July 2019 to June 2022, 1145 cases were evaluated during RT with structured psycho-oncological interviews for a median of 3 sessions (range 2–5). During their first psycho-oncological interview, all the 1145 patients experienced the assessment of anxiety, depression and distress levels with the following results: concerning the HADS-A scale, 50% of cases (574 patients) reported a pathological score ≥8; concerning the HADS-D scale, 30% of cases (340 patients) reported a pathological score ≥8, concerning the DT scale, 60% (687 patients) reported a pathological score ≥4. Eighty-two patients were evaluated after RT: 30 in the Group-OS and 52 in the Group-TC. During follow-up, a median of 8 meetings (range 4–28) were performed. Comparing psychological data at baseline (beginning of RT) and at the last follow-up, in the entire population, a significant improvement in terms of HADS-A, global HADS and BC was shown (p 0.04; p 0.05; and p 0.0008, respectively). Compared to baseline, statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of anxiety in favor of on-site visit: Group-OS reported a better anxiety score compared with Group-TC. In each group, a statistical improvement was observed in BC (p 0.01). CONCLUSION: The study revealed optimal compliance to tele-visit psychological support, even if the anxiety could be better controlled when patients were followed up on-site. However, rigorous research on this topic is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".