Purpose/ Objectives: To establish an optimal cutoff point for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer (DT) as a screening measure to identify and address psychological distress in individuals with cancer, and to examine whether distress as measured by the DT significantly changes across the treatment trajectory. Design: Secondary analyses of baseline data from a longitudinal parent study examining a computerized psychosocial assessment. Setting: Three diverse comprehensive cancer centers across the United States. Sample: 836 patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Methods: Study participants were selected from a randomized clinical trial. Patients during any stage of the cancer treatment trajectory were recruited during achemotherapy infusion or routine oncology appointment. Main Research Variables: The Behavioral Health Status Index and the DT were administered and compared using receiver operating characteristic analyses. Findings: Results support a cutoff score of 3 on the DT to indicate patients with clinically elevated levels of distress. In addition, patients who received a diagnosis within the 1–4 weeks prior to the assessment indicated the highest levels of distress. Conclusions: Providers may wish to use a cutoff point of 3 to most efficiently identify distress in a large, diverse population of patients with cancer. In addition, results indicate that patients may experience a heightened state of distress within 1–4 weeks postdiagnosis compared to other stages of coping with cancer. Implications for Nursing: Using a brief measure of distress can help streamline the process of screening for psychosocial distress.
RCT Entities:
Purpose/ Objectives: To establish an optimal cutoff point for the National Comprehensive CancerNetwork’s Distress Thermometer (DT) as a screening measure to identify and address psychological distress in individuals with cancer, and to examine whether distress as measured by the DT significantly changes across the treatment trajectory. Design: Secondary analyses of baseline data from a longitudinal parent study examining a computerized psychosocial assessment. Setting: Three diverse comprehensive cancer centers across the United States. Sample: 836 patients with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Methods: Study participants were selected from a randomized clinical trial. Patients during any stage of the cancer treatment trajectory were recruited during a chemotherapy infusion or routine oncology appointment. Main Research Variables: The Behavioral Health Status Index and the DT were administered and compared using receiver operating characteristic analyses. Findings: Results support a cutoff score of 3 on the DT to indicate patients with clinically elevated levels of distress. In addition, patients who received a diagnosis within the 1–4 weeks prior to the assessment indicated the highest levels of distress. Conclusions: Providers may wish to use a cutoff point of 3 to most efficiently identify distress in a large, diverse population of patients with cancer. In addition, results indicate that patients may experience a heightened state of distress within 1–4 weeks postdiagnosis compared to other stages of coping with cancer. Implications for Nursing: Using a brief measure of distress can help streamline the process of screening for psychosocial distress.
Authors: Chiara Nosarti; Jonathan V Roberts; Timothy Crayford; Kwame McKenzie; Anthony S David Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Luigi Grassi; Christoffer Johansen; Maria Antonietta Annunziata; Eleonora Capovilla; Anna Costantini; Paolo Gritti; Riccardo Torta; Marco Bellani Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: P C Trask; A Paterson; M Riba; B Brines; K Griffith; P Parker; J Weick; P Steele; K Kyro; J Ferrara Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.483
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
Authors: James Randall Patrinely; Arissa C Young; Henry Quach; Grant R Williams; Fei Ye; Run Fan; Leora Horn; Kathryn E Beckermann; Erin A Gillaspie; Jeffrey A Sosman; Debra L Friedman; Javid J Moslehi; Douglas B Johnson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Joseph G Winger; Katherine Ramos; Sarah A Kelleher; Tamara J Somers; Karen E Steinhauser; Laura S Porter; Arif H Kamal; William S Breitbart; Francis J Keefe Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sara L Douglas; Polly Mazanec; Amy R Lipson; Kim Day; Eric Blackstone; David L Bajor; Joel Saltzman; Smitha Krishnamurthi Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-01
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Yi Ren; Ilona Stashko; Steve Power; Madeline J Thornton; P Kelly Marcom; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gina Tuch; Chandrika Sanapala; Supriya G Mohile; Paul R Duberstein; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Huiwen Xu; Eva Culakova; Marie Flannery; Reza Yousefi-Nooraie; Ronald M Epstein; Colin McHugh; Valerie Aarne; Hannah Kim; Jodi Geer; Mark A O'Rourke; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Kah Poh Loh Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-08-11