Literature DB >> 20345552

Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire.

John Brodersen1, Hanne Thorsen, Svend Kreiner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to extend the Consequences of Screening (COS) Questionnaire for use in a lung cancer screening by testing for comprehension, content coverage, dimensionality, and reliability.
METHODS: In interviews, the suitability, content coverage, and relevance of the COS were tested on participants in a lung cancer screening program. The results were thematically analyzed to identify the key consequences of abnormal and false-positive screening results. Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory were used to analyze data. Dimensionality, objectivity, and reliability were established by item analysis, examining the fit between item responses and Rasch models.
RESULTS: Eight themes specifically relevant for participants in lung cancer screening results were identified: "self-blame,""focus on symptoms,""stigmatization,""introvert,""harm of smoking,""impulsivity,""empathy," and "regretful of still smoking." Altogether, 26 new items for part I and 16 new items for part II were generated. These themes were confirmed to fit a partial-credit Rasch model measuring different constructs including several of the new items.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the reliability and the dimensionality of a condition-specific measure with high content validity for persons having abnormal or false-positive lung cancer screening results have been demonstrated. This new questionnaire called Consequences of Screening in Lung Cancer (COS-LC) covers in two parts the psychosocial experience in lung cancer screening. Part I: "anxiety,""behavior,""dejection,""sleep,""self-blame,""focus on airway symptoms,""stigmatization,""introvert," and "harm of smoking." Part II: "calm/relax,""social network,""existential values,""impulsivity,""empathy," and "regretful of still smoking."

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20345552     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00697.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  20 in total

1.  Informed participation in cancer screening: the facts are changing, and GPs are going to feel it.

Authors:  Linn Getz; John Brodersen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 2.  The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Colleen Barclay; Stacey Sheridan; Noel T Brewer; Meredith Gilliam; Andrew M Moon; William Rearick; Carolyn Ziemer; Russell Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.

Authors:  Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-08-03

Review 4.  Psychological Burden Associated With Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Geena X Wu; Dan J Raz; Laura Brown; Virginia Sun
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 4.785

5.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

6.  Pilot study of a video intervention to reduce anxiety and promote preparedness for lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Dan J Raz; Rebecca A Nelson; Jae Y Kim; Virginia Sun
Journal:  Cancer Treat Res Commun       Date:  2018-04-23

7.  Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Louise Mosborg Aggestrup; Mie Sara Hestbech; Volkert Siersma; Jesper Holst Pedersen; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Patient-centered outcomes among lung cancer screening recipients with computed tomography: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Sullivan; Miranda Pappas; Linda L Humphrey
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 20.121

9.  How to conduct research on overdiagnosis. A keynote paper from the EGPRN May 2016, Tel Aviv.

Authors:  John Brodersen
Journal:  Eur J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.904

10.  Psychometric evaluation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 for HRQOL assessment in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Yu-Jun Chang; Wen-Miin Liang; Hsi-Chin Wu; Hsueh-Chun Lin; Jong-Yi Wang; Tsai-Chung Li; Yi-Chun Yeh; Chih-Hung Chang
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.