PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the ability of Distress Thermometer (DT) scores to discern important differences in quality of life scores among women with breast cancer. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's DT, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), and a demographic questionnaire were completed by 111 women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. RESULTS: Patients considered moderately to severely distressed (score ≥ 4 on DT) scored significantly lower on FACT-B QOL scales and subscales when compared to those in the group scoring 3 or below. For those scales for which minimally important differences (MIDs) have been established, differences between the two groups were 2-3 and a half times the established MID. CONCLUSIONS: Moderately to severely distressed patients have significantly lower QOL than those with expected or mild distress. The DT provides a quick and easy screening tool to alert the healthcare team to clinically relevant alterations in patients' QOL.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the ability of Distress Thermometer (DT) scores to discern important differences in quality of life scores among women with breast cancer. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's DT, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), and a demographic questionnaire were completed by 111 women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. RESULTS:Patients considered moderately to severely distressed (score ≥ 4 on DT) scored significantly lower on FACT-B QOL scales and subscales when compared to those in the group scoring 3 or below. For those scales for which minimally important differences (MIDs) have been established, differences between the two groups were 2-3 and a half times the established MID. CONCLUSIONS: Moderately to severely distressed patients have significantly lower QOL than those with expected or mild distress. The DT provides a quick and easy screening tool to alert the healthcare team to clinically relevant alterations in patients' QOL.
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; Kristine A Donovan; Peter C Trask; Stewart B Fleishman; James Zabora; Frank Baker; Jimmie C Holland Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: MaryAnn Cohen; Rosalind G Hoffman; Caroline Cromwell; James Schmeidler; Fahmy Ebrahim; Gloria Carrera; Fred Endorf; Cesar A Alfonso; Jeffrey M Jacobson Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Julie F Pallant; Kerrie Clover; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Cristina Civilotti; Daniela Acquadro Maran; Francesca Santagata; Antonella Varetto; Maria Rosa Stanizzo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Joanne Lester; Kara Crosthwaite; Robin Stout; Rachel N Jones; Christopher Holloman; Charles Shapiro; Barbara L Andersen Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Sine Rossen; Karen Trier; Berit Christensen; Martina A Eriksen; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Jette Vibe-Petersen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 3.603