The validity of the distress thermometer in female partners of men with prostate cancer

Author Identifier

Suzanne K Chambers

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-6111

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

European Journal of Cancer Care

Medical Subject Headings

Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anxiety; Depression; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prostatic Neoplasms; ROC Curve; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Spouses; Stress, Psychological; Surveys and Questionnaires; Visual Analog Scale; Women

ISSN

1365-2354

Volume

28

Issue

1

First Page

12924

Last Page

12924

PubMed ID

30252180

Publisher

John Wiley and Sons, Ltd

School

Exercise Medicine Research Institute

RAS ID

31178

Grant Number

NHMRC Number : 496001

Comments

Hyde, M. K., Zajdlewicz, L., Lazenby, M., Dunn, J., Laurie, K., Lowe, A., & Chambers, S. K. (2019). The validity of the Distress Thermometer in female partners of men with prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 28(1), Article e12924. Available here

Abstract

Female partners of prostate cancer (PCa) survivors experience heightened psychological distress that may be greater than that expressed by PCa patients. However, optimal approaches to detect distressed, or at risk of distress, partners are unclear. This study applied receiver operating characteristics analysis to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the Distress Thermometer (DT) compared to widely used measures of general (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and cancer-specific (Impact of Events Scale-Revised) distress. Participants were partners of men with localised PCa (recruited around diagnosis) about to undergo or had received surgical treatment (N = 189), and partners of men diagnosed with PCa who were 2-4 years post-treatment (N = 460). In both studies, diagnostic utility of the DT overall was not optimal. Although area under the curve scores were acceptable (ranges: 0.71-0.92 and 0.83-0.94 for general and cancer-specific distress, respectively), sensitivity, specificity and optimal DT cut-offs for partner distress varied for general (range: ≥2 to ≥5) and cancer-specific (range: ≥3 to ≥5) distress both across time and between cohorts. Thus, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the diagnostic capabilities of the DT for partners or recommend its use in this population. More comprehensive screening measures may be needed to detect partners needing psychological intervention.

DOI

10.1111/ecc.12924

Access Rights

free_to_read

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS