Factors Influencing Engagement in Psycho-Oncology Services at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Background: Psychological distress is common among cancer patients, yet some patients referred to psycho-oncology services do not engage in care. Identifying factors associated with engagement may improve supportive care access and reduce disparities. We evaluated sociodemographic and clinical predictors of psychotherapy utilization among patients referred by oncologists or self-referred to psycho-oncology. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed adults with cancer referred to psycho-oncology services between December 2022 and August 2024, with follow-up through December 2025. The primary outcome was attendance versus nonattendance at the initial psychotherapy appointment. Secondary analysis evaluated total psychotherapy visits. Logistic regression and negative binomial regression identified predictors of initial attendance and subsequent utilization, respectively. Results: Among 404 eligible patients, 98 (24.3%) attended no appointments. Median utilization was 2 visits (IQR, 1–5) over 25.7 months (IQR, 15.1–34.1) of follow-up. In multivariable analysis, nonattendance was associated with lack of religious affiliation (Adjusted OR (aOR), 22.7; 95% CI, 8.52–60.5), less than college education (aOR, 7.56; 95% CI, 2.99–19.3), and referral for anxiety alone (aOR, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.72–11.6), depression alone (aOR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.19–14.4), or other indications (aOR, 34.8; 95% CI, 9.39–129.1) versus combined anxiety and depression (all p ≤ 0.03). Higher visit rates were associated with virtual visits (Incidence rate ratios (IRR), 2.92; 95% CI, 2.20–3.89), physician referral (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.49–2.81), later referral, religious affiliation (IRR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.79–5.88), anxiety/depression referral, and targeted therapy (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: Psycho-oncology engagement varies by educational, social, clinical, and referral factors. Telehealth was associated with greater utilization, while referral timing and source may represent modifiable targets for improving engagement and access to supportive care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Oncology
Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33110687
Primary Topic
Cancer survivorship and care
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Factors Influencing Engagement in Psycho-Oncology Services at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Zeina A. Nahleh, Naji S. Mallat, Hong Li, Shefali Pati et al.
Current Oncology
Cancer survivorship and care
article

Factors Influencing Engagement in Psycho-Oncology Services at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Zeina A. Nahleh, Naji S. Mallat, Hong Li, Shefali Pati, Theresa Abdo, Ahmad Alhalabi, К. Шаші, Sacha Yaghi, Aaron Sidhu, Maria Rodriguez Ruiz
article en

Abstract

Background: Psychological distress is common among cancer patients, yet some patients referred to psycho-oncology services do not engage in care. Identifying factors associated with engagement may improve supportive care access and reduce disparities. We evaluated sociodemographic and clinical predictors of psychotherapy utilization among patients referred by oncologists or self-referred to psycho-oncology. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed adults with cancer referred to psycho-oncology services between December 2022 and August 2024, with follow-up through December 2025. The primary outcome was attendance versus nonattendance at the initial psychotherapy appointment. Secondary analysis evaluated total psychotherapy visits. Logistic regression and negative binomial regression identified predictors of initial attendance and subsequent utilization, respectively. Results: Among 404 eligible patients, 98 (24.3%) attended no appointments. Median utilization was 2 visits (IQR, 1–5) over 25.7 months (IQR, 15.1–34.1) of follow-up. In multivariable analysis, nonattendance was associated with lack of religious affiliation (Adjusted OR (aOR), 22.7; 95% CI, 8.52–60.5), less than college education (aOR, 7.56; 95% CI, 2.99–19.3), and referral for anxiety alone (aOR, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.72–11.6), depression alone (aOR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.19–14.4), or other indications (aOR, 34.8; 95% CI, 9.39–129.1) versus combined anxiety and depression (all p ≤ 0.03). Higher visit rates were associated with virtual visits (Incidence rate ratios (IRR), 2.92; 95% CI, 2.20–3.89), physician referral (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.49–2.81), later referral, religious affiliation (IRR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.79–5.88), anxiety/depression referral, and targeted therapy (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: Psycho-oncology engagement varies by educational, social, clinical, and referral factors. Telehealth was associated with greater utilization, while referral timing and source may represent modifiable targets for improving engagement and access to supportive care.

Current OncologyVol. 33(11)
Cleveland Clinic (US), St. George's University (GD), Cleveland Clinic Florida (US), Cleveland Clinic Research (US), American University of Beirut (LB)
Cancer survivorship and care
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon