Examining the “usual” in usual care: a critical review and recommendations for usual care conditions in psycho-oncology
- 95 Downloads
Within psycho-oncology clinical trials, usual care (UC) represents a common and important control condition. Yet recent shifts in oncology, coupled with insufficient description of such conditions, threaten to render UC increasingly difficult to define and interpret. This paper offers evidence of these shifts and recommendations for addressing them.
The broader literature on usual care as a control condition in psychosocial/behavioral intervention trials was assessed, and usual care-controlled trials in psycho-oncology were selectively reviewed, toward to goal of conceptual synthesis.
We offer evidence that (1) UC control conditions are often insufficiently defined and assessed; and (2) the context of supportive care in oncology has shifted in a manner that contributes to this problem, with implications for interpreting and comparing findings across clinical trials. Three converging findings support these conclusions. First, the scientific literature increasingly documents the diversity in how “usual care” conditions are defined across psychosocial and behavioral trials, with important considerations for trial interpretation. Second, evidence suggests that the availability of psychosocial oncology care has increased over the past few decades. The increasing availability and variety of psychosocial care introduces potential confounds for UC conditions. Third, mental health care trends in the general population affect the supportive interventions available to oncology patients in UC conditions today versus in the past.
Shifts in psychosocial oncology and broader mental health care underscore the importance of carefully defining and assessing UC in psycho-oncology trials. Recommendations are offered for improving the design, evaluation, and interpretation of UC conditions, toward the ultimate goal of improving the quality of the evidence in psycho-oncology.
KeywordsPsycho-oncology Supportive care Cancer Usual care Control group Randomized trial
J.J.A was supported by the American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant (Arch, RSG-15-020-01–CPPB) and Pilot & Exploratory Palliative Care Grant (Arch, PEP-16-055-01) in preparing this manuscript; A.L.S. was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (Stanton, BCRF-20184915).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors maintained full control and responsibility for the content and primary data connected to this manuscript. We agree to allow the journal to review our data if requested.
- 2.American College of Surgeons: Commission on Cancer (2012) Cancer program standards 2012: ensuring patient-centered care. vol v1.2.1, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 4.Accreditation Canada (2008) Cancer care and oncology services standards. https://accreditation.ca/accreditation/. Accessed 18 Dec 2018
- 9.Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H, Harewood R, Spika D, Wang X-S, Bannon F, Ahn JV, Johnson CJ, Bonaventure A (2015) Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 385(9972):977–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Institute of Medicine (2008) Cancer care for the whole patient: meeting psychosocial health needs. National US Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 11.Institute of Medicine (2006) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mohr DC, Ho J, Hart TL, Baron KG, Berendsen M, Beckner V, Cai X, Cuijpers P, Spring B, Kinsinger SW (2014) Control condition design and implementation features in controlled trials: a meta-analysis of trials evaluating psychotherapy for depression. Transl Behav Med 4(4):407–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Nelson A (2002) Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. J Natl Med Assoc 94(8):666Google Scholar
- 23.Stanciole AE, Huber M (2009) Access to health care for migrants, ethnic minorities, and asylum seekers in Europe. Policy Brief European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research: 1–8Google Scholar
- 25.Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Thompson A, Zackrisson S, Cardoso F, Group EGW (2013) Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24(suppl_6):vi7–vi23Google Scholar
- 26.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2018) Distess management (guidelines version 2.2018). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/distress.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018
- 29.Andersen BL, DeRubeis RJ, Berman BS, Gruman J, Champion VL, Massie MJ, Holland JC, Partridge AH, Bak K, Somerfield MR, Rowland JH (2014) Screening, assessment, and care of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation. J Clin Oncol 32(15):1605–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 31.Hewitt M, Simone J (1999) Institute of Medicine Report: ensuring quality cancer care. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 37.Nakash O, Levav I, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Andrade LH, Angermeyer MC, Bruffaerts R, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, Florescu S, De Girolamo G (2014) Comorbidity of common mental disorders with cancer and their treatment gap: findings from the World Mental Health Surveys. Psycho-Oncology 23(1):40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Pietrangelo A, Akers W (2017) The 2017 State of Cancer Report: the impact of digital information and patient support networks. https://www.healthline.com/health/state-of-cancer. Accessed 20 Aug 2018
- 46.Hollingworth SA, Burgess PM, Whiteford HA (2010) Affective and anxiety disorders: prevalence, treatment and antidepressant medication use. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 44(6):513–519Google Scholar
- 47.Abbing-Karahagopian V, Huerta C, Souverein P, De Abajo F, Leufkens H, Slattery J, Alvarez Y, Miret M, Gil M, Oliva B (2014) Antidepressant prescribing in five European countries: application of common definitions to assess the prevalence, clinical observations, and methodological implications. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 70(7):849–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Carlson LE, Doll R, Stephen J, Faris P, Tamagawa R, Drysdale E, Speca M (2013) Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery versus supportive expressive group therapy for distressed survivors of breast cancer (MINDSET). J Clin Oncol 31(25):3119–3126Google Scholar
- 51.Penedo FJ, Molton I, Dahn J, Shen B-J, Kinsinger D, Traeger L, Siegel S, Schneiderman N, Antoni MH (2006) A randomized clinical trial of group-based cognitive-behavioral stress management in localized prostate cancer: development of stress management skills improves quality of life and benefit finding. Ann Behav Med 31(3):261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Hawkes AL, Chambers SK, Pakenham KI, Patrao TA, Baade PD, Lynch BM, Aitken JF, Meng X, Courneya KS (2013) Effects of a telephone-delivered multiple health behavior change intervention (CanChange) on health and behavioral outcomes in survivors of colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 31(18):2313–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children; United States, 2007. National health statistics reports, no. 12. National Center for Health Statistics, HyattsvilleGoogle Scholar
- 62.Freedland KE, King AC, Ambrosius WT, Mayo-Wilson E, Mohr DC, Czajkowski SM, Thabane L, Collins LM, Rebok GW, Treweek SP, Cook TD, Edinger JD, Stoney CM, Campo RA, Young-Hyman D, Riley WT, for the National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research Expert Panel on Comparator Selection in Behavioral and Social Science Clinical Trials (in press) Summary Report: The Selection of Comparators for Randomized Controlled Trials of Health-Related Behavioral Interventions: Recommendations of an NIH Expert PanelGoogle Scholar