Screening for distress in cancer patients: Is the distress thermometer a valid measure in the UK and does it measure change over time? A prospective validation study
UCL Hospitals Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, London, UK. Psycho-Oncology
(Impact Factor: 2.44).
06/2008; 17(6):538-47. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1273
A prospective validation study was conducted in 171 consenting patients from oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) at baseline, four weeks and eight weeks.
Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used to examine the sensitivity and specificity of the DT scores against the clinically significant cut-off scores of the criterion measures reporting 95% confidence intervals. Standardised response means were used to compare DT scores with criterion measures over time.
For a cut-off of 4 vs 5, sensitivity against HADS was 79%, specificity 81%; against GHQ-12, sensitivity was 63%, specificity 83%; and against BSI-18, sensitivity was 88%, specificity 74%. At both four and eight weeks, DT scores tended to change significantly in the same direction as the criterion measures. Ninety-five percent of patients found completing the DT acceptable.
The DT is valid and acceptable for use as a rapid screening instrument for patients in the UK with cancer. Our results indicate that it can be used to monitor change in psychological distress over time, but further work is needed to confirm this. Copyright
Available from: Anna K Nowak
- "The scale ranges from 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress). Scores of 5 and 6 indicate moderate distress, while scores of 7 or greater indicate high distress . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To determine High Grade Glioma (HGG) patients' levels of distress and QOL during combined chemoradiotherapy, explore predictors of distress and QOL and prioritize patients' supportive care needs.
Patients diagnosed with HGG who were referred for combined chemoradiotherapy were recruited. Participants completed demographics and questionnaires assessing distress, function, and supportive care needs. Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, t-tests and linear and logistic regression analyses were performed.
116 participants completed the questionnaire. Participants scored lower for QOL in physical, functional and emotional domains than the general Australian population. Poor physical function, lower education levels, loss of employment and financial impact associated with diagnosis were consistently linked with multiple domains of distress, poor QOL and high unmet needs. Having a carer who was their partner predicted lower emotional well-being.
Patients with HGG experience a poor QOL, increased levels of distress and high unmet needs when commencing chemoradiotherapy. Patients who experience a financial impact and those with lower education levels may report higher levels of distress and increased unmet needs.
Poor function, lower education and limited financial resources may help identify those who require additional screening and may benefit from additional information and psychological support at this time.
Patient Education and Counseling 01/2015; 98(4). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2015.01.002 · 2.20 Impact Factor
Available from: Vikki Knott
- "Participants were asked to indicate how much distress they had experienced in the past week on a scale of 0 ('no distress') to 10 ('extreme distress'). The DT has been shown to be a psychometrically sound measure of global psychological distress with cancer patients and carers, with a score of four or above signifying clinically significant distress (Ransom et al. 2006; Gessler et al. 2008; Zwahlen et al. 2008). Levels of anxiety and depression were measured with the self-administered Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Within the area of cancer care, mindfulness-based therapeutic interventions have been found to be efficacious in reducing psychological distress related to a cancer diagnosis; however, the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on quality of life is unclear. This study explores the impact of a Mindfulness-Based Cancer Stress Management programme on psychological distress and quality of life. Research methodology included a single-group quasi-experimental study of 26 participants experiencing distress related to a cancer diagnosis, including carers, who completed an MBCSM programme and all assessments. Participants completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General version 4 (FACT-G) and its associated spirituality index (FACIT-Sp-Ex), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), and the Distress Thermometer at baseline, post-intervention, and three months after programme completion. Significant improvements were observed on all measures (ranges: P ≤ 0.001 to 0.008, r = -0.53 to -0.79) following the intervention, which were maintained at 3-month follow-up. Mindfulness was significantly correlated with all main outcome measures at post-intervention (range: r = -0.41 to 0.67) and 3-month follow-up (range: r = -0.49 to 0.73), providing evidence for the internal validity of the study. Our findings indicate that the MBCSM programme is effective in reducing psychological distress and improving quality of life, including spiritual well-being.
European Journal of Cancer Care 10/2013; 23(3). DOI:10.1111/ecc.12136 · 1.56 Impact Factor
Available from: Karla Gough
- "It has been recommended for use in identifying psychological distress in a clinical setting . The Distress Thermometer (DT) is a reliable and valid single item measure of distress in cancer populations, which appears responsive to change . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women in Australia. The illness and related treatments can cause distressing adverse effects, impact on emotional and psychological well-being, and adversely affect social, occupational and relationship functioning for many years after the end of treatment or, in fact, lifelong. Current models of follow-up fail to address the complex needs arising after treatment completion. Strategies to better prepare and support survivors are urgently required. We previously developed a nurse-led supportive care program (SurvivorCare) and tested it in a pilot study involving 10 CRC survivors. The intervention was found to be highly acceptable, appropriate, relevant and useful.Methods/design: This study is a multisite, randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the impact of the addition of the SurvivorCare intervention to usual post-treatment care, for people with potentially cured CRC. SurvivorCare comprises the provision of survivorship educational materials, a tailored survivorship care plan, an individually tailored nurse-led, face-to-face end of treatment consultation and three subsequent telephone calls. Eligible patients have completed treatment for potentially cured CRC. Other eligibility criteria include stage I to III disease, age greater than 18 years and adequate understanding of English. All consenting patients complete questionnaires at three time points over a six-month period (baseline, two and six months). Measures assess psychological distress, unmet needs and quality of life.
This supportive care package has the potential to significantly reduce individual suffering, whilst reducing the burden of follow-up on acute cancer services through enhanced engagement with and utilisation of general practitioners and community based services. If the intervention is successful in achieving the expected health benefits, it could be disseminated readily. All training and supporting materials have been developed and standardised. Furthermore, the intervention could easily be adapted to other cancer or chronic disease settings.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12610000207011.
Trials 08/2013; 14(1):260. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-260 · 1.73 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.