Stephen D W King1, George Fitchett2, Patricia E Murphy2, Kenneth I Pargament3, David A Harrison4, Elizabeth Trice Loggers5. 1. Chaplaincy, Child Life, & Clinical Patient Navigators, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, PO Box 19023, K1-104, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA. sking@seattlecca.org. 2. Department of Religion, Health & Human Values, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, 43403, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 5. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study sought to validate for the first time a brief screening measure for religious/spiritual (R/S) distress given the Commission on Cancer's mandated screening for psychosocial distress including spiritual distress. METHODS: Data were collected in conjunction with an annual survey of adult hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors. Six R/S distress screeners were compared to the Brief RCOPE, Negative Religious Coping subscale as the reference standard. We pre-specified validity as a sensitivity score of at least 85 %. As no individual measure attained this, two post hoc analyses were conducted: analysis of participants within 2 years of transplantation and of a simultaneous pairing of items. Data were analyzed from 1449 respondents whose time since HCT was 6 months to 40 years. RESULTS: For the various single-item screening protocols, sensitivity ranged from 27 (spiritual/religious concerns) to 60 % (meaning/joy) in the full sample and 25 (spiritual/religious concerns) to 65 % (meaning/joy) in a subsample of those within 2 years of HCT. The paired items of low meaning/joy and self-described R/S struggle attained a net sensitivity of 82 % in the full sample and of 87 % in those within 2 years of HCT but with low net specificities. CONCLUSIONS: While no single-item screener was acceptable using our pre-specified sensitivity value of 85 %, the simultaneous use of meaning/joy and self-described struggle items among cancer survivors is currently the best choice to briefly screen for R/S distress. Future research should validate this and other approaches in active treatment cancer patients and survivors and determine the best times to screen.
PURPOSE: This study sought to validate for the first time a brief screening measure for religious/spiritual (R/S) distress given the Commission on Cancer's mandated screening for psychosocial distress including spiritual distress. METHODS: Data were collected in conjunction with an annual survey of adult hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors. Six R/S distress screeners were compared to the Brief RCOPE, Negative Religious Coping subscale as the reference standard. We pre-specified validity as a sensitivity score of at least 85 %. As no individual measure attained this, two post hoc analyses were conducted: analysis of participants within 2 years of transplantation and of a simultaneous pairing of items. Data were analyzed from 1449 respondents whose time since HCT was 6 months to 40 years. RESULTS: For the various single-item screening protocols, sensitivity ranged from 27 (spiritual/religious concerns) to 60 % (meaning/joy) in the full sample and 25 (spiritual/religious concerns) to 65 % (meaning/joy) in a subsample of those within 2 years of HCT. The paired items of low meaning/joy and self-described R/S struggle attained a net sensitivity of 82 % in the full sample and of 87 % in those within 2 years of HCT but with low net specificities. CONCLUSIONS: While no single-item screener was acceptable using our pre-specified sensitivity value of 85 %, the simultaneous use of meaning/joy and self-described struggle items among cancer survivors is currently the best choice to briefly screen for R/S distress. Future research should validate this and other approaches in active treatment cancerpatients and survivors and determine the best times to screen.
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: George Fitchett; Patricia E Murphy; Jo Kim; James L Gibbons; Jacqueline R Cameron; Judy A Davis Journal: Int J Psychiatry Med Date: 2004 Impact factor: 1.210
Authors: Ineke H G J Smets; Gertrudis I J M Kempen; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Laura Deckx; Frank J V M Buntinx; Marjan van den Akker Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Stephen D W King; George Fitchett; Patricia E Murphy; Geila Rajaee; Kenneth I Pargament; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; David A Harrison; Rebecca H Johnson Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Laurie E McLouth; C Graham Ford; James E Pustejovsky; Crystal L Park; Allen C Sherman; Kelly Trevino; John M Salsman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Christina M Puchalski; Andrea Sbrana; Betty Ferrell; Najmeh Jafari; Stephen King; Tracy Balboni; Guido Miccinesi; Anna Vandenhoeck; Michael Silbermann; Lodovico Balducci; Julianna Yong; Andrea Antonuzzo; Alfredo Falcone; Carla Ida Ripamonti Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2019-02-16
Authors: Betty Ferrell; Vincent Chung; Marianna Koczywas; Tami Borneman; Terry L Irish; Nora H Ruel; Nilofer S Azad; Rhonda S Cooper; Thomas J Smith Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 3.955