Literature DB >> 21535271

Response shift in the assessment of anxiety, depression and perceived health in urologic cancer patients: an individual perspective.

A Hinz1, C Finck Barboza, M Zenger, S Singer, T Schwalenberg, J-U Stolzenburg.   

Abstract

The assessment of quality of life in cancer patients is hampered because patients may change their frames of reference during the course of the disease. The aim of this study was to test individual differences in these response shift effects. Urologic cancer patients (n= 275) were examined during the stay in the hospital (T1), 2 weeks later (T2) and 3 months later (T3). Furthermore, at T3 they were asked to retrospectively assess their situation at T1 (then-test). The difference between this retrospective assessment and the original assessment at T1 was used to determine the response shift effect (recalibration). Anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-2), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2) and health dissatisfaction (Questionnaire on Life Satisfaction) were obtained at all points in time. The effect sizes of the mean response shift effects (recalibration) ranged between 0.26 and 0.48. Nevertheless, a large proportion of the sample showed no response shift (22-38%) or even negative response shift effects (20-30%). There were significant correlations among the response shift measures of the domains (anxiety, depression and health dissatisfaction) with coefficients between 0.29 and 0.51. The results indicate that response shift should not only be assessed on the mean score level, since it is also a dimension of individual difference.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21535271     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01256.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)        ISSN: 0961-5423            Impact factor:   2.520


  6 in total

1.  Examining relationships between age at diagnosis and health-related quality of life outcomes in prostate cancer survivors.

Authors:  Christine J Kurian; Amy E Leader; Melissa S Y Thong; Scott W Keith; Charnita M Zeigler-Johnson
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.295

2.  The Role of Response-Shift in Studies Assessing Quality of Life Outcomes Among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Gabriela Ilie; Jillian Bradfield; Louise Moodie; Tarek Lawen; Alzena Ilie; Zeina Lawen; Chloe Blackman; Ryan Gainer; Robert D H Rutledge
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Reliability and validity of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP).

Authors:  Maria Johanna van der Kluit; Geke J Dijkstra; Sophia E de Rooij
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.921

4.  Anticipated adaptation or scale recalibration?

Authors:  Yvette Edelaar-Peeters; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  Neurocognitive Function, Psychosocial Outcome, and Health-Related Quality of Life of the First-Generation Metastatic Melanoma Survivors Treated with Ipilimumab.

Authors:  Anne Rogiers; Christophe Leys; Justine Lauwyck; Adrian Schembri; Gil Awada; Julia Katharina Schwarze; Jennifer De Cremer; Peter Theuns; Paul Maruff; Mark De Ridder; Jan L Bernheim; Bart Neyns
Journal:  J Immunol Res       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 4.818

6.  Impact of health-related stigma on psychosocial functioning in cancer patients: Construct validity of the stigma-related social problems scale.

Authors:  Emma Ohlsson-Nevo; Johan Ahlgren; Jan Karlsson
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 2.520

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.