Kerrie Ann Clover1,2, Christopher Oldmeadow3, Louise Nelson4, Kerry Rogers4, Alex J Mitchell5, Gregory Carter4,6. 1. Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. kerrie.clover@calvarymater.org.au. 2. Priority Research Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. kerrie.clover@calvarymater.org.au. 3. Clinical Research Design, Information Technology and Statistical Support (CReDITSS), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia. 4. Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 5. Department of Psycho-oncology, University of Leicester and Leicestershire Partnership Trust, Leicester, UK. 6. Priority Research Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The importance of distress identification and management in oncology has been established. We examined the relationship between distress and unmet bio-psychosocial needs, applying advanced statistical techniques, to identify which needs have the closest relationship to distress. METHODS: Oncology outpatients (n = 1066) undergoing QUICATOUCH screening in an Australian cancer centre completed the distress thermometer (DT) and problem list (PL). Principal component analysis (PCA), logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses tested the relationship between DT score (at a cut-off point of 4) and PL items. RESULTS: Sixteen items were reported by <5 % of participants. PCA analysis identified four major components. Logistic regression analysis indicated three of these component scores, and four individual items (20 items in total) demonstrated a significant independent relationship with distress. The best CART model contained only two PL items: 'worry' and 'depression'. CONCLUSIONS: The DT and PL function as intended, quantifying negative emotional experience (distress) and identifying bio-psychosocial sources of distress. We offer two suggestions to minimise PL response time whilst targeting PL items most related to distress, thereby increasing clinical utility. To identify patients who might require specialised psychological services, we suggest the DT followed by a short, case-finding instrument for patients over threshold on the DT. To identify other important sources of distress, we suggest using a modified PL of 14 key items, with the 15th item 'any other problem' as a simple safety net question. Shorter times for patient completion and clinician response to endorsed PL items will maximise acceptance and clinical utility.
PURPOSE: The importance of distress identification and management in oncology has been established. We examined the relationship between distress and unmet bio-psychosocial needs, applying advanced statistical techniques, to identify which needs have the closest relationship to distress. METHODS: Oncology outpatients (n = 1066) undergoing QUICATOUCH screening in an Australian cancer centre completed the distress thermometer (DT) and problem list (PL). Principal component analysis (PCA), logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses tested the relationship between DT score (at a cut-off point of 4) and PL items. RESULTS: Sixteen items were reported by <5 % of participants. PCA analysis identified four major components. Logistic regression analysis indicated three of these component scores, and four individual items (20 items in total) demonstrated a significant independent relationship with distress. The best CART model contained only two PL items: 'worry' and 'depression'. CONCLUSIONS: The DT and PL function as intended, quantifying negative emotional experience (distress) and identifying bio-psychosocial sources of distress. We offer two suggestions to minimise PL response time whilst targeting PL items most related to distress, thereby increasing clinical utility. To identify patients who might require specialised psychological services, we suggest the DT followed by a short, case-finding instrument for patients over threshold on the DT. To identify other important sources of distress, we suggest using a modified PL of 14 key items, with the 15th item 'any other problem' as a simple safety net question. Shorter times for patient completion and clinician response to endorsed PL items will maximise acceptance and clinical utility.
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: Michelle B Riba; Kristine A Donovan; Barbara Andersen; IIana Braun; William S Breitbart; Benjamin W Brewer; Luke O Buchmann; Matthew M Clark; Molly Collins; Cheyenne Corbett; Stewart Fleishman; Sofia Garcia; Donna B Greenberg; Rev George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Chao-Hui Huang; Robin Lally; Sara Martin; Lisa McGuffey; William Mitchell; Laura J Morrison; Megan Pailler; Oxana Palesh; Francine Parnes; Janice P Pazar; Laurel Ralston; Jaroslava Salman; Moreen M Shannon-Dudley; Alan D Valentine; Nicole R McMillian; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Daniel C McFarland; Kelly M Shaffer; Heather Polizzi; John Mascarenhas; Marina Kremyanskaya; Jimmie Holland; Ronald Hoffman Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Patricia I Jewett; Deanna Teoh; Sue Petzel; Heewon Lee; Audrey Messelt; Jeffrey Kendall; Dorothy Hatsukami; Susan A Everson-Rose; Anne H Blaes; Rachel I Vogel Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-02-24
Authors: Hannah Voß; Peter Scholz-Kreisel; Christoph Richter; Florian Ringel; Susanne Singer; Mirjam Renovanz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Angelo Braga Mendonça; Eliane Ramos Pereira; Carinne Magnago; Pedro Gilson da Silva; Diva Cristina Morett Leão; Rose Mary Costa Rosa Andrade Silva; Karina Cardoso Meira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 3.390