BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is severe in women who receive a report of abnormal findings on Pap smear, and may be one reason 10-61% of such women fail to undergo follow-up testing. METHODS: Using the 14-question Psychosocial Effects of Abnormal Pap Smears Questionnaire (PEAPS-Q) as a basis, we developed the 23-question Cervical Dysplasia Distress Questionnaire (CDDQ), testing its internal consistency and validity with 661 women undergoing colposcopy after an abnormal Pap smear finding in a three-phase analysis. RESULTS: Items were divided into two sets and factor analyzed separately: one addressed distress during medical procedures, and the other concerned perceived consequences of an abnormal Pap smear. The medical procedures items yielded two factors: embarrassment regarding the procedures and discomfort/tension with the procedures. Factor analysis of the second set also resulted in two factors: concern about sexual and reproductive issues and concern about health consequences. Subscales created from items loading highly on each factor had high internal consistency (alpha ranged from 0.76 to 0.90) and demonstrated good concurrent validity with other psychometrically validated measures of distress. CONCLUSIONS: The CDDQ is a reliable and valid questionnaire for measuring multiple domains of distress unique to women who test positive on a cervical cancer screening test.
BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is severe in women who receive a report of abnormal findings on Pap smear, and may be one reason 10-61% of such women fail to undergo follow-up testing. METHODS: Using the 14-question Psychosocial Effects of Abnormal Pap Smears Questionnaire (PEAPS-Q) as a basis, we developed the 23-question Cervical Dysplasia Distress Questionnaire (CDDQ), testing its internal consistency and validity with 661 women undergoing colposcopy after an abnormal Pap smear finding in a three-phase analysis. RESULTS: Items were divided into two sets and factor analyzed separately: one addressed distress during medical procedures, and the other concerned perceived consequences of an abnormal Pap smear. The medical procedures items yielded two factors: embarrassment regarding the procedures and discomfort/tension with the procedures. Factor analysis of the second set also resulted in two factors: concern about sexual and reproductive issues and concern about health consequences. Subscales created from items loading highly on each factor had high internal consistency (alpha ranged from 0.76 to 0.90) and demonstrated good concurrent validity with other psychometrically validated measures of distress. CONCLUSIONS: The CDDQ is a reliable and valid questionnaire for measuring multiple domains of distress unique to women who test positive on a cervical cancer screening test.
Authors: Lynne S Schilling; Jane K Dixon; Kathleen A Knafl; Mary R Lynn; Kathryn Murphy; Susan Dumser; Margaret Grey Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Timon P H Buys; Scott B Cantor; Martial Guillaud; Karen Adler-Storthz; Dennis D Cox; Clement Okolo; Oyedunni Arulogon; Oladimeji Oladepo; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; José-Miguel Yamal; J Robert Beck; Michael E Scheurer; Dirk van Niekerk; Anais Malpica; Jasenka Matisic; Gregg Staerkel; Edward Neely Atkinson; Luc Bidaut; Pierre Lane; J Lou Benedet; Dianne Miller; Tom Ehlen; Roderick Price; Isaac F Adewole; Calum MacAulay; Michele Follen Journal: Gend Med Date: 2011-09-22
Authors: Linda A Liang; Sylke R Zeissig; Gunther Schauberger; Sophie Merzweiler; Kathrin Radde; Sabine Fischbeck; Hans Ikenberg; Maria Blettner; Stefanie J Klug Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: Laura J Fish; Patricia G Moorman; Lashawn Wordlaw-Stintson; Adriana Vidal; Jennifer S Smith; Cathrine Hoyo Journal: Am J Health Educ Date: 2013
Authors: Elizabeth M Kanter; Elizabeth Vargis; Shovan Majumder; Matthew D Keller; Emily Woeste; Gautam G Rao; Anita Mahadevan-Jansen Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.207
Authors: Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Lauren Dawson; James J Grady; Daniel M Breitkopf; Carolyn Nelson-Becker; Russell R Snyder Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Harrell W Chesson; Elaine W Flagg; Laura Koutsky; Katherine Hsu; Elizabeth R Unger; Judith C Shlay; Peter Kerndt; Khalil G Ghanem; Jonathan M Zenilman; Michael Hagensee; Hillard Weinstock; S Deblina Datta Journal: Vaccine Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 3.641