4.6 Article

Prevalence of emotional distress in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages 1493-1497

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-009-0614-6

Keywords

NSCLC; Psychological distress; Questionnaires; Distress thermometer

Funding

  1. The Mona Zavalkoff Fund
  2. Sanofi-Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Distress is defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological, social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer. We investigated the prevalence and associated symptoms of distress in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Between November 2005 and July 2007, 98 newly diagnosed lung cancer patients completed an assessment. The Distress Thermometer (DT) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were used as screening tools. Fifty (51%) patients reported clinically significant distress (a parts per thousand yen4) on the DT. Of those, 26 (52%) patients reported high levels of depression, nervousness, or both on ESAS. The remaining 24 (48%) patients had elevated levels of distress but no significant depression or nervousness. A correlation between the DT and the total ESAS score was observed (Pearson correlation = 0.46). The ten items of the ESAS together explained 46% of the variability in DT scores. The depression and nervousness ESAS items were significant predictors of DT score (p < 0.01 for both items). However, once the two psychosocial items, depression and nervousness, were removed from the total ESAS score, leaving only physical symptoms and the sleeplessness item, the predictive power of the model decreased to RA(2) = 0.12. The prevalence of distress in lung cancer patients is high. The DT appears to discriminate between physical and emotional distress. This easily measured score may determine which patients require further intervention for emotional distress.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available