BACKGROUND: As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, identification of brief, valid psychological screening measures is critical for providing these survivors with appropriate psychosocial care. The distress thermometer (DT) is a one-item distress screening recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for screening cancer patients during their treatment. METHOD: In this study, the validity of the DT for identifying psychological distress in cancer survivors was evaluated by comparing results of the DT to the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) in a sample of 120 survivors of adult onset cancer. RESULTS: Results indicated that when using the NCCN suggested cutoff score of 5, the DT only identified 10 of the 21 BSI-18 positive cases of psychological distress (sensitivity 47.6%; specificity 90.9%). Using an alternative DT cutoff score of 4, 12 of the 21 BSI-18 positive cases were identified (sensitivity 51.7%; specificity 89.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support the validity of the DT in survivors of adult cancers.
BACKGROUND: As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, identification of brief, valid psychological screening measures is critical for providing these survivors with appropriate psychosocial care. The distress thermometer (DT) is a one-item distress screening recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for screening cancerpatients during their treatment. METHOD: In this study, the validity of the DT for identifying psychological distress in cancer survivors was evaluated by comparing results of the DT to the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) in a sample of 120 survivors of adult onset cancer. RESULTS: Results indicated that when using the NCCN suggested cutoff score of 5, the DT only identified 10 of the 21 BSI-18 positive cases of psychological distress (sensitivity 47.6%; specificity 90.9%). Using an alternative DT cutoff score of 4, 12 of the 21 BSI-18 positive cases were identified (sensitivity 51.7%; specificity 89.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support the validity of the DT in survivors of adult cancers.
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: Diana Zwahlen; Niels Hagenbuch; Margaret I Carley; Christopher J Recklitis; Stefan Buchi Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Soo Jin Yoon; Kyong-Mee Chung; Jung Woo Han; Seung Min Hahn; Sun Hee Kim; Chuhl Joo Lyu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Giselle K Perez; Anne C Kirchhoff; Christopher Recklitis; Kevin R Krull; Karen A Kuhlthau; Paul C Nathan; Julia Rabin; Gregory T Armstrong; Wendy Leisenring; Leslie L Robison; Elyse R Park Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-04-15 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Michelle M Hilgeman; Jennifer Moye; Elizabeth Archambault; Rebecca L Billings; Michele J Karel; Jeffrey Gosian; Aanand D Naik Journal: Fed Pract Date: 2012-08
Authors: Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio; Emily K Porensky; Matthew Minotti; Susan Brown; Janet Snapp; Robert M Taylor; Michael D Adolph; Sherman Everett; Kenneth Lowther; Kelly Callahan; Devita Streva; Vicki Heinke; Debra Leno; Courtney Flower; Anne McVey; Barbara Lee Andersen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Xuelei Ma; Jing Zhang; Wuning Zhong; Chi Shu; Fengtian Wang; Jianing Wen; Min Zhou; Yaxiong Sang; Yu Jiang; Lei Liu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Caitlin R Meeker; Daniel M Geynisman; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Karen Y Mechanic; Marijo Bilusic; Elizabeth R Plimack; Lainie P Martin; Margaret von Mehren; Bianca Lewis; Yu-Ning Wong Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 3.840