Discriminatory power of a 25-item distress screening tool: a cross-sectional survey of 251 cancer survivors
- 242 Downloads
The objective was to test the discriminatory power of a 25-item distress screening tool for use among cancer survivors. We used a measure of item discrimination to determine which items perform better than others at identifying those at greatest risk of distress.
A total of 251 members (90 % female, median age 57 years) of a community-based cancer support organization completed a web-based distress screening tool. Participants were asked to rate each of 25 items according to the question “Today, how concerned are you about…?” using a five-point Likert scale (0 not at all to 4 very seriously concerned). An overall distress score was calculated as the sum of items rated at or above two for somewhat concerned. Participants were categorized as high scorers (≥13, n = 59) and low scorers (≤4, n = 60). The item discrimination index (IDI) was calculated for each item as the percentage difference in concerned (somewhat or greater) responses between high and low scorers.
Items with the greatest discriminatory power (IDI ≥0.8) were as follows: changes or disruptions in work, school or home life; feeling sad or depressed; feeling too tired to do the things you need or want to do; worrying about the future and what lies ahead; and feeling nervous or afraid. Conversely, items with the lowest IDI included considering taking your own life; eating and nutrition; tobacco or substance use; and transportation to treatment and appointments.
The results highlight, among 25 items of a community-based distress screening tool, items with the greatest discriminatory power to identify cancer survivors with psychosocial distress. Results suggest targeted screening items to identify those most at risk for distress and priority areas for support services.
KeywordsDistress Cancer Community-based Screening Oncology
The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Victoria Kennedy, Christopher Gayer, and Anne Morris from the Cancer Support Community; the local Cancer Support Community affiliates who recruited and supported participants in this study; and Stephanie Singleton, Dynamic Clinical Systems. This study was supported by Grants from Genentech, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly and Company Foundation.
Conflict of interest
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
- 6.Institute of Medicine (US) (2008) Committee on psychosocial services to cancer patients/families in a community setting. In N. E. Adler & A. E. K. Page (Eds.), Cancer care for the whole patient: Meeting psychosocial health needs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US). Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK4015/.
- 7.NCCN Practice Guidelines for the Management of Psychosocial Distress. (1999). National comprehensive cancer network. Oncology (Williston Park), 13(5A), 113–147.Google Scholar
- 8.American College of Surgeons. (2011). Commission on Cancer, Cancer Program Standards 2012: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons.Google Scholar
- 10.Rebalance Focus Action Group. (2005). A position paper: Screening key indicators in cancer patients: Pain as a 5th vital sign and emotional distress as a 6th vital sign. Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control Bulletin, 7(suppl), 4.Google Scholar
- 11.Accreditation Canada. (2009) Cancer care and oncology services standards. http://www.accreditation.ca/accreditation-programs/qmentum/standares/cancer-care.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2009.
- 12.Department of Health Victoria. (2008). Victorian cancer action plan 2008–2011. Melbourne: Published by the Victorian Government, Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
- 19.Loscalzo, M., et al. (2010). SupportScreen: A model for improving patient outcomes. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 8, 496–504.Google Scholar
- 20.Carlson, L. E., & Bultz, B. D. (2004). Efficacy and medical cost offset of psychosocial interventions in cancer care: Making the case for economic analyses. Psychooncology, 13(12), 837–849; discussion, 850–856.Google Scholar
- 23.Miller, M. F., Buzaglo, J. S., Taylor, J., Kennedy, V., Singelton, S., Gayer, C., Golant, M. (2012). Psychometric properties of a 25-item distress screening tool in a community sample of 251 cancer survivors. 6th Biennial Cancer Survivorship Research Conference: Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
- 24.Buzaglo, J. S., Miller, M. F., Gayer, C., Morris, A., & Golant, M. (2013). CancerSupportSource: Validating a web-based distress screening tool in the community. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 11(3), 242–243.Google Scholar
- 25.Thiboldeaux, K. G. (2007). The total cancer wellness guide: Reclaiming your life after diagnosis. BenBella: Dallas.Google Scholar
- 27.Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research (Vol. 2). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.Google Scholar
- 28.Doran, R. (1980). Basic measurement and evaluation of science instruction. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
- 33.Sedlak, C. A., & Zeller, R. A. (1998). Using item discrimination to improve measurement. Orthopaedic Nursing, 17(5), 71–72.Google Scholar
- 39.Cohen, G., (2002). Cancer clinical trials: A primer for participation of community physicians. In M. C. Perry (Ed) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2002 Educational Book (pp. 283–289). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar