Commentary

The study by Nezu et al is important because not only does it provide data that further supports the benefits of PST already reported in other clinical populations but also uses robust study methods to show the potential for a psychological intervention to improve the lives of those affected by cancer related distress. Although many published studies evaluating the effect of psychological interventions on morbidity associated with cancer exist, many are fraught with methodological flaws.¹ This high quality study constitutes a substantial improvement on many weaker studies in this area. Specific improvements include the fact that patients were followed up at 1 year and the use of inferential statistics, effect size, and ratings of clinical significance to examine the effect of the intervention. Outcome assessment using self report measures, clinician ratings, and ratings from an SO were included. The study also included measures to assess changes in problem solving, providing data suggesting that changes might be moderated by improvements in problem solving ability. Potential participants had to be able to name an SO, thus excluding people who may lack social support, a factor that is often associated with distress.

Although the benefits of supportive and psychological care interventions are well established, few patients with cancer receive these as part of routine care.² The challenge now for those involved in the delivery of health care is how to ensure that patients access these interventions and that clinicians are properly trained to deliver psychological therapies such as PST to people with cancer who may benefit. Finally, it will be important to evaluate PST within a clinical effectiveness paradigm, chosen to reflect a wide range of clinical, sociodemographic, and psychological characteristics of patients.