A newly posted article on the F1000 website raises questions about what the website claims is a “peer-reviewed” open research platform.
Infomercial? The F1000 platform allowed authors and the reviewers whom they nominated to collaborate in crafting more of their special interest advocacy that they have widely disseminated elsewhere. Nothing original in this article and certainly not best evidence!
I challenge the authors and the reviewers they picked to identify something said in the F1000 article that they have not said numerous times before either alone or in papers co-authored by some combination of authors and the reviewers they picked for this paper.
F1000 makes the attractive and misleading claim that versions of articles that are posted on its website reflect the response to reviewers.
Readers should be aware of uncritically accepting articles on the F 1000 website as having been peer-reviewed in any conventional sense of the term.
Will other special interests groups exploit this opportunity to brand their claims as “peer-reviewed” without the risk of having to tone down their claims in peer review? Is this already happening?
In the case of this article, reviewers were all chosen by the authors and have a history of co-authoring papers with the authors of the target paper in active advocacy of a shared political perspective, one that is contrary to available evidence.
Cynically, future authors might be motivated to divide their team, with some remaining authors and others dropping off to become nominated as reviewers. They could then suggest content that had already been agreed would be included, but was left off for the purposes being suggested in the review process
F1000Research bills itself as
An Open Research publishing platform for life scientists, offering immediate publication of articles and other research outputs without editorial bias. All articles benefit from transparent refereeing and the inclusion of all source data.
Material posted on this website is labeled as having received rapid peer-review:
Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing an in-house quality check. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors, takes place openly after publication.
My recent Google Scholar alert call attention to an article posted on F1000
Who were the reviewers?
Google the names of authors and reviewers. You will discover a pattern of co-authorship; leadership positions in international Psycho-Oncology society, a group promoting the mandating of specially mental health services for cancer patients, and lots of jointly and separately authored articles making a pitch for increased involvement of mental health professionals in routine cancer care. This article adds almost nothing to what is multiply available elsewhere in highly redundant publications
Given a choice of reviewers, these authors would be unlikely to nominate me. Nonetheless, here is my review of the article.
As I might do in a review of a manuscript, I’m not providing citations for these comments, but support can readily be found by a search of blog posts at my website @CoyneoftheRealm.com and Google Scholar search of my publications. I welcome queries from anybody seeking documentation of these points below.
The notion that cancer patients having a fighting spirit improves survival is popular in the lay press and in promoting the power of the mind over cancer, but it has thoroughly been discredited.
Early on, the article identifies fighting spirit as an adaptive coping style. In actuality, fighting spirit was initially thought to predict mortality in a small methodologically flawed study. But that is no longer claimed.
Even one of the authors of the original study, Maggie Watson, expressed relief when her own larger, better designed study failed to confirm the impression that a fighting spirit extended life after diagnosis of cancer. Why? Dr. Watson was concerned that the concept was being abused in blaming cancer patients who were dying there was to their personal deficiency of not having enough fighting spirit.
Fighting spirit is rather useless as a measure of psychological adaptation. It confounds severity of cancer enrolled dysfunction with efforts to cope with cancer.
Distress as the sixth vital sign for cancer patients
Beware of a marketing slogan posing as an empirical statement. Its emptiness is similar to that of to “Pepsi is the one.” Can you imagine anyone conducting a serious study in which they conclude “Pepsi is not the one”?
Once again in this article, a vacuous marketing slogan is presented in impressive, but pseudo-medical terms. Distress cannot be a vital sign in the conventional sense. Thr vital signs are objective measurements that do not depend on patient self-report: body temperature, pulse rate, and respiration rate (rate of breathing) (Blood pressure is not considered a vital sign, but is often measured along with the vital signs.).
Pain was declared a fifth vital sign, with physicians mandated by guidelines to provide routine self-report screening of patients, regardless of their reasons for visit. Pain being the fifth vital sign seems to have been the inspiration for declaring distress as the sixth vital sign for cancer patients. However policy makers declaring pain as the fifth vital sign did not result in improved patient levels of pain. Their subsequent making intervention mandatory for any reports of pain led to a rise in unnecessary back and knee surgery, with a substantial rise in associated morbidity and loss of function. The next shift to prescription of opioids that were claimed not to be addictive was the beginning of the current epidemic of addiction to prescription opioids. Making pain the fifth vital sign is killed a lot of patients and turned others into addicts craving drugs on the street because they have lost their prescriptions for the opioids that addicted them.
Cancer as a mental health issue
There is a lack of evidence that cancer carries a risk of psychiatric disorder more than other chronic and catastrophic illnesses. However, the myth that there is something unique or unusual about cancer’s threat to mental health is commonly cited by mental health professional advocacy groups is commonly used to justify increased resources to them for specialized services.
The article provides an inflated estimate of psychiatric morbidity by counting adjustment disorders as psychiatric disorders. Essentially, a cancer patient who seeks mental health interventions for distress qualifies by virtue of help seeking being defined as impairment.
The conceptual and empirical muddle of “distress” in cancer patients
The article repeats the standard sloganeering definition of distress that the authors and reviewers have circulated elsewhere.
It has been very broadly defined as “a multifactorial, unpleasant, emotional experienceof a psychological (cognitive, behavioural, emotional), social and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms and its treatment and that extends along a continuum, ranging from common normalfeelings of vulnerability, sadness and fears to problems that can become disabling, such as depression, anxiety, panic, social isolation and existential and spiritual crisis”5
[You might try googling this. I’m sure you’ll discover an amazing number of repetitions in similar articles advocating increasing psychosocial services for cancer patients organized around this broad definition.]
Distress is so broadly defined and all-encompassing, that there can be no meaningful independent validation of distress measures except for by other measures of distress, not conventional measures of adaptation or mental health. I have discussed that in a recent blog post.
If we restrict “distress” to the more conventional meaning of stress or negative affect, we find that any elevation in distress (usually 35% or so) associated with onset diagnosis of cancer tends to follow a natural trajectory of decline without formal intervention. Elevations in distress for most cancer patients, are resolved within 3 to 6 months without intervention. A residual 9 to 11% of cancer patients having elevated distress is likely attributed to pre-existing psychiatric disorder.
Routine screening for distress
The slogan “distress is the sixth vital sign” is used to justify mandatory routine screening of cancer patients for distress. In the United States, surgeons cannot close their electronic medical records for a patient and go on to the next patient without recording whether they had screened patients for distress, and if the patient reports distress, what intervention has been provided. Clinicians simply informally asking patients if they are distressed and responding to a “yes” by providing the patient with an antidepressant without further follow up allows surgeons to close the medical records.
As I have done so before, I challenge advocates of routine screening of cancer patients for distress to produce evidence that simply introducing routine screening without additional resources leads to better patient outcomes.
Routine screening for distress as uncovering unmet needs among cancer patients
Studies in the Netherlands suggest that there is not a significant increase in need for services from mental health or allied health professionals associated with diagnosis of cancer. There is some disruption of such services that patients were receiving before diagnosis. It doesn’t take screening and discussion to suggest that patients that they at some point resume those services if they wish. There is also some increased need for physical therapy and nutritional counseling
If patients are simply asked a question whether they want a discussion of the services (in Dutch: Zou u met een deskundige willen praten over uw problemen?) that are available, many patients will decline.
Much of demand for supportive services like counseling and support groups, especially among breast cancer patients is not from among the most distressed patients. One of the problems with clinical trials of psychosocial interventions is that most of the patients who seek enrollment are not distressed, and less they are prescreened. This poses dilemma: if you require elevated distress on a screening instrument, we end up rationing services and excluding many of the patients who would otherwise be receiving them.
I welcome clarification from F 1000 just what they offer over other preprint repositories. When one downloads a preprint from some other repositories, it clearly displays “not yet peer-reviewed.” F 1000 carries the advantage of the label of “peer-reviewed, but does not seem to be hard earned.
Slides are from two recent talks at Dutch International Congress on Insurance Medicine Thursday, November 9, 2017, Almere, Netherlands :
Will primary care be automated screening and procedures or talking to patients and problem-solving? Invited presentation
Why you should not routinely screen your patients for depression and what you should do instead. Plenary Presentation