Distress management in cancer patients：Guideline implementation based on CAN-IMPLEMENT.
Liang Fu, Xiaoju Zhang, Yan Hu and 7 others
PMID 35509700WHAT IT FOUND
Standardized distress screening and nurse-led management reduced positive distress rates in gastric cancer patients from 22.7% to 9.3% and lowered distress scores.
This was a historical comparison, not a randomized trial, so other factors may explain the improvement.
Key findings
01The positive distress rate (DT ≥ 4) decreased from 22.7% (32/141) before implementation to 9.3% (18/193) during implementation.
02Distress scores declined from a median of 2 (range 0–9) before implementation to 0 (range 0–7) during implementation.
03The completion rate of distress management records increased from 0% at baseline to 97.9% (189/193) after the guideline implementation.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used a historical controlled design, not randomization, so differences between periods could be due to time trends or other changes in care rather than the intervention itself. The sample was restricted to gastric cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, limiting generalizability to other cancer types. Barriers and facilitators were assessed via expert meetings rather than a broader survey, which may have missed some perspectives. The maintenance phase had a small sample size (n=30), making the sustainability data less robust.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by Fudan-Fuxing Nursing Research Funds and the JBI Evidence Based Clinical Fellowship Program Funds. The sponsor did not participate in the study design, data collection, or interpretation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the reduction in distress rates was caused solely by the guideline implementation. The study was a historical comparison, not a randomized controlled trial, so secular trends or other concurrent changes in care could explain the improvement.