Literature DB >> 24311958

Sensitivity and specificity of the Distress Thermometer in screening for distress in long-term nasopharyngeal cancer survivors.

J S Hong1, J Tian.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Distress Thermometer (dt) is a screening tool recommended to quickly identify cancer patients with distress. Our study aimed to examine the sensitivity and specificity of the dt in detecting psychological distress in long-term Chinese nasopharyngeal cancer (npc) survivors.
METHODS: Data for the 442 participating npc survivors were collected through a self-administered questionnaire based on the dt and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (hads). The hads was used to define cases of psychological distress. Positive and negative groups were defined based on 4 hads criteria (Anxiety, Depression, Anxiety or Depression, and overall score). Receiver operating characteristic (roc) curves were used to examine the ability of all possible cut-off values of the dt to detect positive and negative cases. For each roc curve, the area under the curve (auc) was used as an indicator of the overall accuracy of the dt to identify positive cases of distress.
RESULTS: The positive auc values [with 95% confidence intervals (ci)] for the 4 hads criteria were 0.715 (95% ci: 0.667 to 0.764), 0.714 (95% ci: 0.661 to 0.768), 0.724 (95% ci: 0.677 to 0.771), and 0.724 (95% ci: 0.664 to 0.775) respectively. At a cut-off score of 4, the sensitivity of the dt to the four hads criteria was, respectively, 0.366 (95% ci: 0.296 to 0.436), 0.448 (95% ci: 0.364 to 0.532), 0.362 (95% ci: 0.299 to 0.425), and 0.421 (95% ci: 0.339 to 0.502), and the specificity of the dt to the 4 hads criteria was, respectively, 0.860 (95% ci: 0.818 to 0.902), 0.860 (95% ci: 0.821 to 0.899), 0.854 (95% ci: 0.814 to 0.894), and 0.854 (95% ci: 0.814 to 0.894). At a cut-off score of 5, the corresponding sensitivities were lower than those at the cut-off score of 4. All potential cut-off scores showed poor sensitivity (<0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: The roc analysis showed poor discrimination. No potential dt cut-off score had an acceptable sensitivity. The dt showed poor sensitivity in npc survivors. Thus, the dt might not be a valid scale for psychological distress screening in long-term Chinese npc survivors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Distress; Distress Thermometer; nasopharyngeal cancer survivors; validity

Year:  2013        PMID: 24311958      PMCID: PMC3851354          DOI: 10.3747/co.20.1617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  37 in total

1.  How does the Distress Thermometer compare to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for detecting possible cases of psychological morbidity among cancer survivors?

Authors:  Allison Boyes; Catherine D'Este; Mariko Carey; Christophe Lecathelinais; Afaf Girgis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Screening for psychological distress in Turkish cancer patients.

Authors:  Elvan Ozalp; Eylem Sahin Cankurtaran; Haldun Soygür; Pinar Ozdemir Geyik; Paul B Jacobsen
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.894

3.  Physical distress, emotional status, and quality of life in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer complicated by post-radiotherapy endocrinopathy.

Authors:  Bee-Horng Lue; Tien-Shang Huang; Hsiu-Jung Chen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-08-31       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Distress management. Clinical practice guidelines.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Quality of life of long-term survivors of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Linda Sarna; Geraldine Padilla; Carmack Holmes; Donald Tashkin; Mary Lynn Brecht; Lorraine Evangelista
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Validation and reliability of distress thermometer in chinese cancer patients.

Authors:  Li-Li Tang; Ye-Ning Zhang; Ying Pang; Hai-Wei Zhang; Li-Li Song
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.087

7.  Evaluation of the Chinese version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. A cross-cultural perspective.

Authors:  C M Leung; S Ho; C S Kan; C H Hung; C N Chen
Journal:  Int J Psychosom       Date:  1993

8.  American Cancer Society Award lecture. Psychological care of patients: psycho-oncology's contribution.

Authors:  Jimmie C Holland
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  How successful are oncologists in identifying patient distress, perceived social support, and need for psychosocial counselling?

Authors:  W Söllner; A DeVries; E Steixner; P Lukas; G Sprinzl; G Rumpold; S Maislinger
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  High levels of untreated distress and fatigue in cancer patients.

Authors:  L E Carlson; M Angen; J Cullum; E Goodey; J Koopmans; L Lamont; J H MacRae; M Martin; G Pelletier; J Robinson; J S A Simpson; M Speca; L Tillotson; B D Bultz
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-06-14       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  8 in total

1.  Validity of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) for identifying depression and anxiety in young adult cancer survivors: Comparison with a Structured Clinical Diagnostic Interview.

Authors:  Christopher J Recklitis; Jaime E Blackmon; Grace Chang
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2017-01-12

Review 2.  Provision of integrated psychosocial services for cancer survivors post-treatment.

Authors:  Christopher J Recklitis; Karen L Syrjala
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  Screening young adult cancer survivors with the PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF): Comparison with a structured clinical diagnostic interview.

Authors:  Christopher J Recklitis; Jaime E Blackmon; Grace Chang
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Distress Thermometer for Screening Distress in Asian Patients with Cancer.

Authors:  Huihui Sun; Sudip Thapa; Bangyan Wang; Xiaofen Fu; Shiying Yu
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  2021-06

5.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2016.

Authors:  Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer A Ligibel; Madhuri Are; K Scott Baker; Gregory Broderick; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Lee W Jones; Allison King; Grace H Ku; Elizabeth Kvale; Terry S Langbaum; Mary S McCabe; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Mary Ann Morgan; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Jeffrey Peppercorn; M Alma Rodriguez; Kathryn J Ruddy; Tara Sanft; Paula Silverman; Sophia Smith; Karen L Syrjala; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole R McMillian; Deborah A Freedman-Cass
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 11.908

6.  Psychometric validity of the distress thermometer and problem check list in ART-naïve HIV infected patients in Northern Nigeria.

Authors:  Victor Olisah Obiajulu; Tajudeen Abiola; Christopher Okpataku Izehinosen; Reginald O Obiako; Ishaq Audu Aveka; Bashir Yakasai Adam; Taiwo Sheikh Lateef
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.927

7.  Performance of Distress Thermometer and Associated Factors of Psychological Distress among Chinese Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Sudip Thapa; Huihui Sun; Gaurab Pokhrel; Bangyan Wang; Sanuja Dahal; Shiying Yu
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 4.375

8.  Psychosocial and Functional Distress of Cancer Patients in A Tertiary Care Hospital: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Guru Sharan Sah
Journal:  JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc       Date:  2019 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 0.406

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.