Mette L Olesen1, Merete K Hansen2, Helena Hansson3, Bent Ottesen4, Klaus K Andersen2, Vibeke Zoffmann3. 1. Juliane Marie Centre, Research Unit Women's and Children's Health Dept. 7821 and Department of Gynaecology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. mette.linnet.olesen@regionh.dk. 2. Statistics and Pharmacoepidemiology, The Danish Cancer Society Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Juliane Marie Centre, Research Unit Women's and Children's Health Dept. 7821 and Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Juliane Marie Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Unrecognised psychological distress among cancer survivors may be identified using short screening tools. We validated the accuracy of the distress thermometer (DT) to detect psychological distress on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) among early stage gynaecological cancer survivors and whether the women's DT and HADS scores were associated with the need of an individualised supportive intervention. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five gynaecological cancer survivors answered DT and HADS before randomisation in a trial testing a nurse-led, person-centred intervention using supportive conversations. The number of conversations was decided in the woman-nurse dyad based on the woman's perceived need. Nurses were unaware of the women's DT and HADS scores. We validated DT's accuracy for screening using HADS as gold standard and receiver operating characteristic curves. Associations between DT and HADS scores and the number of conversations received were investigated. RESULTS: For screening of distress (HADS ≥ 15), a DT score ≥ 2, had a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 82-98%), a specificity of 40% (32-49%), and positive and negative predictive values of 36% (28-45%), and 94% (84-98%), respectively; area under curve was 0.73 (0.64-0.81). Higher DT and HADS scores were associated with more interventional conversations. CONCLUSIONS: In gynaecological cancer survivors, DT may perform fairly well as a first stage screening tool for distress, but a second stage is likely needed due to a high number of false positives. DT and HADS scores may predict the number of supportive conversations needed in an individualised intervention in gynaecological cancer survivors.
PURPOSE: Unrecognised psychological distress among cancer survivors may be identified using short screening tools. We validated the accuracy of the distress thermometer (DT) to detect psychological distress on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) among early stage gynaecological cancer survivors and whether the women's DT and HADS scores were associated with the need of an individualised supportive intervention. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five gynaecological cancer survivors answered DT and HADS before randomisation in a trial testing a nurse-led, person-centred intervention using supportive conversations. The number of conversations was decided in the woman-nurse dyad based on the woman's perceived need. Nurses were unaware of the women's DT and HADS scores. We validated DT's accuracy for screening using HADS as gold standard and receiver operating characteristic curves. Associations between DT and HADS scores and the number of conversations received were investigated. RESULTS: For screening of distress (HADS ≥ 15), a DT score ≥ 2, had a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 82-98%), a specificity of 40% (32-49%), and positive and negative predictive values of 36% (28-45%), and 94% (84-98%), respectively; area under curve was 0.73 (0.64-0.81). Higher DT and HADS scores were associated with more interventional conversations. CONCLUSIONS: In gynaecological cancer survivors, DT may perform fairly well as a first stage screening tool for distress, but a second stage is likely needed due to a high number of false positives. DT and HADS scores may predict the number of supportive conversations needed in an individualised intervention in gynaecological cancer survivors.
Authors: Soo Hyun Kim; Sokbom Kang; Yong-Man Kim; Byoung-Gie Kim; Seok Ju Seong; Soon Do Cha; Chan-Yong Park; Young Ho Yun Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Kristina L Mirabeau-Beale; Alice B Kornblith; Richard T Penson; Hang Lee; Annekathryn Goodman; Susana M Campos; Linda Duska; Lauren Pereira; Jessica Bryan; Ursula A Matulonis Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
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