Maria Charalampopoulou1, Konstantinos Syrigos2, Evaggelos Filopoulos3, Vasileios Megalooikonomou4, Dimitrios Vlachakis5,6, George Chrousos1, Christina Darviri1. 1. Postgraduate Course Stress Science and Health Promotion, School of Medicine, University Athens, Athens, Greece. 2. Postgraduate Course Stress Science and Health Promotion, School of Medicine, University Athens, Athens, Greece, 3rd Oncology Unit GPP, Sotiria General Hospital, Athens, Greece. 3. Breast Cancer Department, Agios Savvas General Oncology Hospital, Athens, Greece. 4. Computer Engineering and Informatics Department, School of Engineering, University of Patras, Patras 26500, Greece. 5. Laboratory of Genetics, Department of Biotechnology, School of Food, Biotechnology and Development, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos, 11855, Athens, Greece. 6. Lab of Molecular Endocrinology, Center of Clinical, Experimental Surgery and Translational Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity and the reliability of a novel measurement tool, the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale (NDBCSS) in the Greek population. The tool aimed to assess distress in patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: We performed a principal component analysis (PCA) of the 17 items of the scale. RESULTS: The PCA resulted in 4 factors: 1. Personal life, 2. Procedural issues, 3. Facing challenges and 4. Psychological load. All subscales showed satisfactory internal consistency and variance, relative to theoretical score ranges. Subscale scores and total score were significantly correlated with perceived stress and hospital anxiety and depression scale, implying good criterion validity. Associations with social, demographic and disease related information were also found. CONCLUSIONS: The NDBCSS resulted in acceptable reliability and good validity, and was considered as a valuable tool for health-care workers and oncologists to measure psychological distress in early stage of breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity and the reliability of a novel measurement tool, the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale (NDBCSS) in the Greek population. The tool aimed to assess distress in patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: We performed a principal component analysis (PCA) of the 17 items of the scale. RESULTS: The PCA resulted in 4 factors: 1. Personal life, 2. Procedural issues, 3. Facing challenges and 4. Psychological load. All subscales showed satisfactory internal consistency and variance, relative to theoretical score ranges. Subscale scores and total score were significantly correlated with perceived stress and hospital anxiety and depression scale, implying good criterion validity. Associations with social, demographic and disease related information were also found. CONCLUSIONS: The NDBCSS resulted in acceptable reliability and good validity, and was considered as a valuable tool for health-care workers and oncologists to measure psychological distress in early stage of breast cancer.
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Vicki S Helgeson; Howard Seltman; Jakob de Vries; Robbert Sanderman; Adelita V Ranchor Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Wendy W T Lam; Yee Ting Shing; George A Bonanno; Anthony D Mancini; Richard Fielding Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Pepijn Brocken; Judith B Prins; P N Richard Dekhuijzen; Henricus F M van der Heijden Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: William F Pirl; Anna Muriel; Vivian Hwang; Alice Kornblith; Joseph Greer; Karen Donelan; Donna B Greenberg; Jennifer Temel; Lidia Schapira Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec
Authors: Eleni Andreou; Evangelos C Alexopoulos; Christos Lionis; Liza Varvogli; Charalambos Gnardellis; George P Chrousos; Christina Darviri Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 3.390