Deepti Chopra1, Richard De La Garza2, Tamara E Lacourt2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. dachopra@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adequate adjustment to bodily changes during various phases of cancer treatment is important to patients' emotional well-being. The Body Image Scale (BIS) is a widely used tool for assessment of body image concerns in different cancer types. However, a cut point score indicative of clinically relevant body image concerns has not been established. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether the previously suggested, but not validated, BIS cut point score of ≥ 10 is an adequate indicator of psychological distress. METHODS: In a prospective cross-sectional study, 590 adult patients were recruited from a psychiatric oncology clinic (November 2017-March 2018). Patient-reported body image concerns, depression, anxiety, and emotional distress were assessed with the BIS, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, respectively. RESULTS: Almost half of the patients had a BIS score ≥ 10; these were more likely to be younger, female, Hispanic, and to have breast cancer than patients with a score < 10. BIS scores were positively associated with depression, anxiety, and distress scores. A BIS score ≥ 10 was a significant predictor of moderate depression and anxiety (odds ratios = 3.555 [95% CI 2.478-5.102] and 3.655 [2.493-5.358]; p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to have assessed the validity of the previously suggested clinically relevant BIS cut point score of ≥ 10 as an indicator of psychological distress. Our results suggest that a BIS score of ≥ 10 or higher should lead to follow-up on body image concerns and/or appropriate referral.
PURPOSE: Adequate adjustment to bodily changes during various phases of cancer treatment is important to patients' emotional well-being. The Body Image Scale (BIS) is a widely used tool for assessment of body image concerns in different cancer types. However, a cut point score indicative of clinically relevant body image concerns has not been established. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether the previously suggested, but not validated, BIS cut point score of ≥ 10 is an adequate indicator of psychological distress. METHODS: In a prospective cross-sectional study, 590 adult patients were recruited from a psychiatric oncology clinic (November 2017-March 2018). Patient-reported body image concerns, depression, anxiety, and emotional distress were assessed with the BIS, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, respectively. RESULTS: Almost half of the patients had a BIS score ≥ 10; these were more likely to be younger, female, Hispanic, and to have breast cancer than patients with a score < 10. BIS scores were positively associated with depression, anxiety, and distress scores. A BIS score ≥ 10 was a significant predictor of moderate depression and anxiety (odds ratios = 3.555 [95% CI 2.478-5.102] and 3.655 [2.493-5.358]; p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to have assessed the validity of the previously suggested clinically relevant BIS cut point score of ≥ 10 as an indicator of psychological distress. Our results suggest that a BIS score of ≥ 10 or higher should lead to follow-up on body image concerns and/or appropriate referral.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anxiety; Body image; Cancer; Depression; Distress; Physical appearance
Authors: Christian A Falk Dahl; Kristin V Reinertsen; Inger-Lise Nesvold; Sophie D Fosså; Alv A Dahl Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Menke H Hazewinkel; Ellen T M Laan; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Guus Fons; Matthé P M Burger; Jan-Paul W R Roovers Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: J B Reese; P H Finan; J A Haythornthwaite; M Kadan; K R Regan; J M Herman; J Efron; L A Diaz; N S Azad Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Karin C H M Bisseling; Srinivas Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan; Ruud L M Bekkers; Monika Janda; Andreas Obermair Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Justine G Albert; Christopher Lo; Zeev Rosberger; Saul Frenkiel; Michael Hier; Anthony Zeitouni; Karen Kost; Alex Mlynarek; Martin Black; Christina MacDonald; Keith Richardson; Marco Mascarella; Gregoire B Morand; Gabrielle Chartier; Nader Sadeghi; Khalil Sultanem; George Shenouda; Fabio L Cury; Melissa Henry Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Mahasti Saghatchian; Benjamin Lacas; Cécile Charles; Amal Ghouadni; Gabrielle Tergemina Clain; Diane Boinon; Suzette Delaloge; Ines Vaz-Luis; Sarah Dauchy; Philippe Amiel Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Macias; Brittany N Hand; Patrik Pipkorn; Amy M Williams; Steven S Chang; Joseph Zenga; Marci L Nilsen; Bethany A Rhoten; Andrew T Huang; Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters; Stacey Maurer; Wendy Balliet; Hong Li; Kenneth J Ruggiero; Katherine R Sterba; Evan M Graboyes Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-12-10