4.6 Article

Identifying the key characteristics of clinical fear of cancer recurrence: An international Delphi study

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 430-436

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.5283

关键词

cancer; Delphi; definition; expert consensus; fear of cancer recurrence; oncology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Without an agreed-upon set of characteristics that differentiate clinical from nonclinical levels of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), it is difficult to ensure that FCR severity is appropriately measured, and that those in need of intervention are identified. The objective of this study was to establish expert consensus on the defining features of clinical FCR. Method A three-round Delphi was used to reach consensus on the defining features of clinical FCR. Sixty-five experts in FCR (researchers, psychologists, physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals) were recruited to suggest and rate potential features of clinical FCR. Participants who indicated they could communicate diagnoses within their clinical role were also asked to consider the application of established DSM-5 and proposed ICD-11 diagnostic criteria (Health Anxiety, Illness Anxiety Disorder, Somatic Symptom Disorder) to clinical FCR. Results Participants' ratings suggested that the following four features are key characteristics of clinical FCR: (a) high levels of preoccupation; (b) high levels of worry; (c) that are persistent; and (d) hypervigilance to bodily symptoms. Of participants whose professional role allowed them to diagnose mental disorders, 84% indicated it would be helpful to diagnose clinical FCR, but the use of established diagnostic criteria related to health anxiety or somatic-related disorders to clinical FCR was not supported. This suggests that participants consider clinical FCR as a presentation that is specific to cancer survivors. Conclusion Clinical FCR was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. Further research is needed to empirically validate the proposed defining features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据