OBJECTIVE: Physiological and psychological sequelae are frequent after a cancer diagnosis and also on the long term. Screening could help detect psychological distress early and thus enable timely provision of adequate treatment. The emotion thermometer (ET) is a validated screening tool including five dimensions (distress, anxiety, depression, anger, and need-for-help). Reviewing the literature, we aimed to describe (a) the validity and (b) the application of the ET. METHODS: Six databases were systematically searched for studies using the ET in individuals diagnosed with cancer. Included studies were critically appraised for methodological quality. ET validity and application were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: We identified 580 records eligible for title-abstract screening. Seventeen studies based on 13 different populations were included. Validation studies (5 of 17) concluded that the ET is sensitive to distress detection, delivering prompt and accurate results with no negative impact on clinic visit time. Furthermore, its use is accepted in patients and clinicians. The remaining 12 exploratory studies applied the ET for screening purposes (3 of 12), as outcome measure (6 of 12), or as predictor variable measure (3 of 12). Most studies were conducted in Europe (11 of 17), and 7 of the 12 exploratory studies used the recommended cutoff (greater than or equal to 4). Study populations were mostly female (9 of 13) with a mean age greater than 50 years (12 of 13) at study. CONCLUSIONS: Publications on distress screening with the ET are scarce, especially among young populations. However, research and studies' recommendations support the ET's utility as a valid and feasible tool for distress screening including anxiety and depression and suggest its implementation as part of a structured program for early screening in cancer care.
OBJECTIVE: Physiological and psychological sequelae are frequent after a cancer diagnosis and also on the long term. Screening could help detect psychological distress early and thus enable timely provision of adequate treatment. The emotion thermometer (ET) is a validated screening tool including five dimensions (distress, anxiety, depression, anger, and need-for-help). Reviewing the literature, we aimed to describe (a) the validity and (b) the application of the ET. METHODS: Six databases were systematically searched for studies using the ET in individuals diagnosed with cancer. Included studies were critically appraised for methodological quality. ET validity and application were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: We identified 580 records eligible for title-abstract screening. Seventeen studies based on 13 different populations were included. Validation studies (5 of 17) concluded that the ET is sensitive to distress detection, delivering prompt and accurate results with no negative impact on clinic visit time. Furthermore, its use is accepted in patients and clinicians. The remaining 12 exploratory studies applied the ET for screening purposes (3 of 12), as outcome measure (6 of 12), or as predictor variable measure (3 of 12). Most studies were conducted in Europe (11 of 17), and 7 of the 12 exploratory studies used the recommended cutoff (greater than or equal to 4). Study populations were mostly female (9 of 13) with a mean age greater than 50 years (12 of 13) at study. CONCLUSIONS: Publications on distress screening with the ET are scarce, especially among young populations. However, research and studies' recommendations support the ET's utility as a valid and feasible tool for distress screening including anxiety and depression and suggest its implementation as part of a structured program for early screening in cancer care.
Authors: Gabriela Schmid-Mohler; Christian Clarenbach; Gabi Brenner; Malcolm Kohler; Eva Horvath; Marc Spielmanns; Heidi Petry Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2020-06-15
Authors: Joan C Medina; Aida Flix-Valle; Ana Rodríguez-Ortega; Rosa Hernández-Ribas; María Lleras de Frutos; Cristian Ochoa-Arnedo Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Clarissa E Schilstra; Karen McCleary; Joanna E Fardell; Mark W Donoghoe; Emma McCormack; Rishi S Kotecha; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Shanti Ramachandran; Ruelleyn Cockcroft; Rachel Conyers; Siobhan Cross; Luciano Dalla-Pozza; Peter Downie; Tamas Revesz; Michael Osborn; Frank Alvaro; Claire E Wakefield; Glenn M Marshall; Marion K Mateos; Toby N Trahair Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 4.638
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