Barbara Muzzatti1, Maria Antonietta Annunziata2. 1. Unit of Oncological Psychology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico National Cancer Institute, Via F. Gallini, 2, 33081, Aviano, Italy. 2. Unit of Oncological Psychology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico National Cancer Institute, Via F. Gallini, 2, 33081, Aviano, Italy. annunziata@cro.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Body image is a psychological dimension of the experience of cancer, which varies along the clinical features of the disease itself and in its phases, as well as its effects in terms of functioning and quality of life. In 2012, Supportive Care in Cancer published a review addressing the relevance, application, and instruments of body image assessment for oncological settings. Since then, many research papers have been published on this topic and new questionnaires for assessing body image in oncology are now available. This contribution aims to offer both researchers and clinicians an updated review of body image assessment tools. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Scopus databases, which allowed us to identify pertinent papers, classified according to the body image tool to which they refer. We then extracted the characteristics and the psychometric properties from each study. RESULTS: From the 657 initial records, 23 papers met the selection criteria referring to 8 body image measurements. Although increasing in number and being the subject of a growing number of studies, these papers are still not exhaustive with respect to the verified psychometric properties. In particular, it is worth noting that their applicability to all types of cancer is limited and that a focus on women with breast cancer prevails. CONCLUSION: A complete validation (including a study of all types of validity and reliability) and an indication of the case results are not currently available for any of the eight instruments described. However, studies designed to apply body image assessment tools to patients other than those experiencing breast cancer as well to cultural contexts other than English-speaking countries, are increasing.
PURPOSE: Body image is a psychological dimension of the experience of cancer, which varies along the clinical features of the disease itself and in its phases, as well as its effects in terms of functioning and quality of life. In 2012, Supportive Care in Cancer published a review addressing the relevance, application, and instruments of body image assessment for oncological settings. Since then, many research papers have been published on this topic and new questionnaires for assessing body image in oncology are now available. This contribution aims to offer both researchers and clinicians an updated review of body image assessment tools. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Scopus databases, which allowed us to identify pertinent papers, classified according to the body image tool to which they refer. We then extracted the characteristics and the psychometric properties from each study. RESULTS: From the 657 initial records, 23 papers met the selection criteria referring to 8 body image measurements. Although increasing in number and being the subject of a growing number of studies, these papers are still not exhaustive with respect to the verified psychometric properties. In particular, it is worth noting that their applicability to all types of cancer is limited and that a focus on women with breast cancer prevails. CONCLUSION: A complete validation (including a study of all types of validity and reliability) and an indication of the case results are not currently available for any of the eight instruments described. However, studies designed to apply body image assessment tools to patients other than those experiencing breast cancer as well to cultural contexts other than English-speaking countries, are increasing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body image; Cancer; Psychometrics; Reliability; Validity
Authors: Julia M Hormes; Leslie A Lytle; Cynthia R Gross; Rehana L Ahmed; Andrea B Troxel; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C S Carver; C Pozo-Kaderman; A A Price; V Noriega; S D Harris; R P Derhagopian; D S Robinson; F L Moffat Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Sarah E Ferguson; Sara Urowitz; Christine Massey; Marie Wegener; Naakwarley Quartey; David Wiljer; Catherine C Classen Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paloma Gómez-Campelo; Carmen Bragado-Álvarez; M José Hernández-Lloreda; M Luisa Sánchez-Bernardos Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: E Jane Dalton; Valaire Naisbitt Rasmussen; Catherine C Classen; Mareile Grumann; Oxana Gronskaya Palesh; Julia Zarcone; Helena C Kraemer; Jeffrey J Kirshner; Lauren K Colman; Gary R Morrow; David Spiegel Journal: Breast J Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Chindhu Shunmuga Sundaram; Haryana M Dhillon; Phyllis N Butow; Puma Sundaresan; Claudia Rutherford Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heleen C Melissant; Koen I Neijenhuijs; Femke Jansen; Neil K Aaronson; Mogens Groenvold; Bernhard Holzner; Caroline B Terwee; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Pim Cuijpers; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kerry Ettridge; Joanna Caruso; David Roder; Ivanka Prichard; Katrine Scharling-Gamba; Kathleen Wright; Caroline Miller Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Jan Brederecke; Jennifer L Scott; Martina de Zwaan; Elmar Brähler; Frank Neuner; Michael Quinn; Tanja Zimmermann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240