The Validity of the Distress Thermometer in Female Partners of Men with Prostate Cancer
File version
Author(s)
Zajdlewicz, Leah
Lazenby, Mark
Dunn, Jeff
Laurie, Kirstyn
Lowe, Anthony
Chambers, Suzanne K
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
Sydney, Australia
License
Abstract
Objective: The use of the Distress Thermometer (DT) to identify those who are distressed and require further psychological evaluation is well established for cancer patients. However, partners of patients also experience distress yet the validity of this brief screening tool in partners of patients with cancer, and specifically prostate cancer (PCa), is relatively unknown.
Methods: Receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to assess the accuracy of the DT compared to validated measures of general (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]) and cancer‐specific (Impact of Events Scale– Revised [IES‐R]) distress in two prospective surveys of partners of men with PCa (n = 189, Study 1 and n = 460, Study 2). In Study 1, participants were partners of men with localised PCa (recruited around diagnosis) about to undergo or had received surgical treatment, and in Study 2 participants were partners of men diagnosed with PCa who were 2–4 years post‐treatment.
Results: In Study 1: the diagnostic accuracy of the DT compared to the HADS was acceptable (area under the curve (AUC) range 0.71‐0.84) yet the confidence intervals associated with the AUCs were wide. Optimal DT thresholds varied from ≥2 to ≥5 and sensitivity, a key performance indicator in this context, was low (range 50.00‐87.50). In Study 2: for the HADS the AUCs indicated good discriminatory ability of the DT (range 0.80‐0.92). However, there was variability in the DT thresholds (range ≥1 to ≥4) and while sensitivity values were high specificity values were lower than required. Against the IES‐R, AUCs were high (range 0.83‐0.94) and DT thresholds ranged ≥3 to ≥5. Sensitivity and specificity were more evenly balanced when the DT was compared to the IES‐R.
Conclusions: No clear patterns were identified with respect to the performance of the DT across comparator constructs or over time. As a result, it is not possible to recommend the ideal cut‐off for use of the DT to detect partners of men with PCa who are distressed. Future research is therefore required to identify an optimal screening tool for partner distress.
Journal Title
Conference Title
ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Book Title
Edition
Volume
14
Issue
S2
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Oncology and carcinogenesis
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Persistent link to this record
Citation
Hyde, MK; Zajdlewicz, L; Lazenby, M; Dunn, J; Laurie, K; Lowe, A; Chambers, SK, The Validity of the Distress Thermometer in Female Partners of Men with Prostate Cancer, Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2018, 14, pp. 53-53