BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) in the Netherlands and to examine its correspondence with a 46-item Problem List, possible risk factors, and the wish for a referral. METHODS: A cross-sectional group of 277 cancer patients who were treated at 9 hospitals filled in the DT and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and rated the presence and severity of problems (response rate, 49%). RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analyses identified an ideal cutoff score of 5 on the DT with a positive predictive value of 39% and a negative predictive value of 95%. The Problem List appeared to be a reliable measure. Five items on the Problem List correlated strongly with the DT, 13 items had a moderately strong correlation, 26 items were correlated weakly, and 2 items were not correlated significantly. Emotional control, nervousness, pain, and physical fitness appeared to contribute independently to the DT score. The percentage of patients scoring > or =5 (n = 118 patients; 43%) who wanted (14%) or maybe wanted (29%) a referral was significantly higher than the percentage of patients with DT scores <5 (5% and 13%, respectively) who wanted or maybe wanted a referral. Intensively treated patients reported more distress than those who only underwent surgery. No other clear risk factors for distress were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The DT appeared to be a good instrument for routine screening and ruling out elevated distress. Emotional and physical problems contributed mainly to distress. Experiencing clinically elevated distress did not necessarily suggest that patients wanted a referral. Screening for distress and the wish for a referral can facilitate providing support for those patients who most need and want it. 2008 American Cancer Society
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) in the Netherlands and to examine its correspondence with a 46-item Problem List, possible risk factors, and the wish for a referral. METHODS: A cross-sectional group of 277 cancerpatients who were treated at 9 hospitals filled in the DT and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and rated the presence and severity of problems (response rate, 49%). RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analyses identified an ideal cutoff score of 5 on the DT with a positive predictive value of 39% and a negative predictive value of 95%. The Problem List appeared to be a reliable measure. Five items on the Problem List correlated strongly with the DT, 13 items had a moderately strong correlation, 26 items were correlated weakly, and 2 items were not correlated significantly. Emotional control, nervousness, pain, and physical fitness appeared to contribute independently to the DT score. The percentage of patients scoring > or =5 (n = 118 patients; 43%) who wanted (14%) or maybe wanted (29%) a referral was significantly higher than the percentage of patients with DT scores <5 (5% and 13%, respectively) who wanted or maybe wanted a referral. Intensively treated patients reported more distress than those who only underwent surgery. No other clear risk factors for distress were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The DT appeared to be a good instrument for routine screening and ruling out elevated distress. Emotional and physical problems contributed mainly to distress. Experiencing clinically elevated distress did not necessarily suggest that patients wanted a referral. Screening for distress and the wish for a referral can facilitate providing support for those patients who most need and want it. 2008 American Cancer Society
Authors: Gabriella Morasso; Silvia Di Leo; Anita Caruso; Andrea Decensi; Monica Beccaro; Laura Berretta; Laura Bongiorno; Maurizio Cosimelli; Stefania Finelli; Gabriella Rondanina; Wissya Santoni; Vittoria Stigliano; Massimo Costantini Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Edward E Partridge; Maria Pisu; Michelle Y Martin; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Aras Acemgil; Kelly Kenzik; Elizabeth A Kvale; Karen Meneses; Xuelin Li; Yufeng Li; Karina I Halilova; Bradford E Jackson; Carol Chambless; Nedra Lisovicz; Mona Fouad; Richard A Taylor Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Richard A Taylor; Aras Acemgil; Xuelin Li; Maria Pisu; Kelly Kenzik; Bradford E Jackson; Karina I Halilova; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Karen Meneses; Yufeng Li; Michelle Y Martin; Carol Chambless; Nedra Lisovicz; Mona Fouad; Edward E Partridge; Elizabeth A Kvale Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: O P Geerse; D Brandenbarg; H A M Kerstjens; A J Berendsen; S F A Duijts; H Burger; G A Holtman; J E H M Hoekstra-Weebers; T J N Hiltermann Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2019-02-10 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Naseem Ghazali; Anastasios Kanatas; Daniel J R Langley; Barry Scott; Derek Lowe; Simon N Rogers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-07-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: S Y Tan; J Turner; K Kerin-Ayres; S Butler; C Deguchi; S Khatri; C Mo; A Warby; I Cunningham; A Malalasekera; H M Dhillon; Janette L Vardy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; George M Slavich; Koenraad Degeest; Michael Goodheart; David Bender; Premal H Thaker; Frank Penedo; Bridget Zimmerman; Joseph Lucci; Luis Mendez; Katherine Collins; Anil K Sood Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: A M J Braamse; B van Meijel; O Visser; P C Huijgens; A T F Beekman; J Dekker Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Floortje K Ploos van Amstel; Sanne W van den Berg; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Marieke F M Gielissen; Judith B Prins; Petronella B Ottevanger Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.603