Impact of psychological intervention on perceived distress of cancer patients: Results from a longitudinal study in India.

Abstract

e24062 Background: Despite the psychological impact of cancer being a well-established entity, it is often not prioritised in low to middle-income nations. We conducted a study to identify the burden of distress and the effects of psychological interventions on cancer patients at a government hospital in India. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted at our hospital between May and December 2024. The target population included all patients before, during, and after cancer treatment. The NCCN distress thermometer measured patients' distress before and after the psychological intervention. Open-ended interviews were used to record additional information. Results: Of the 250 included patients, 43.6% were males. The mean age was 53.86 years. The patients were classified into pre-treatment (22.8%), active treatment (57.2%), and post-treatment (20%) groups. 66% were inpatients. 61% were on treatment with curative intent, and 48.8% had received more than two modalities of cancer treatment. 62% of the patients came from a rural background, and 47.2% had no formal education. 36.8% belonged to a low, and 54.4% to a middle socioeconomic status. The most common diagnoses were head and neck cancers (23.2%), followed by genitourinary cancers (21.8%). The baseline mean distress score pre-intervention was 5.04, which improved to 3.95 post-intervention. The highest average distress score (6.36) was noted in brain tumour patients, who also displayed the smallest decrease post-intervention (6.27). An improvement in distress score was seen across all subgroups, irrespective of gender, residence, education, socioeconomic standing, intent, or treatment status. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour therapy, psycho-education, and supportive counselling, with 63% of the patients requiring more than one technique. Although IPD patients underwent a higher average number of interventions than OPD patients, there was no difference in the improvement in distress levels between the two groups. This suggests that even minimal psychological intervention can be useful in alleviating disease-associated distress. However, the authors believe that continued intervention can result in more sustained relief from distress. Open-ended interviews revealed fear of recurrence and metastasis as the most common cause of distress. Conclusions: Psychological intervention had a substantial positive impact on the cancer-associated distress experienced by our study patients. This improvement was observed even with minimal intervention in all patient subgroups. Reducing psychological distress could improve patients’ quality of life and possibly contribute to better treatment compliance and outcomes.