Cited by 196Cancer survivorship and careChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifePalliative and Oncologic Care

Screening for distress in cancer patients: is the distress thermometer a valid measure in the UK and does it measure change over time? A prospective validation study

Gessler, S., Low, J., Daniells, E., Williams, R., Brough, V., Tookman, A., Jones, L.·2008·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

A prospective validation study was conducted in 171 consenting patients from oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), General Health Questionnaire‐12 (GHQ‐12) and Brief Symptom Inventory‐18 (BSI‐18) at baseline, four weeks and eight weeks. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used to examine the sensitivity and specificity of the DT scores against the clinically significant cut‐off scores of the criterion measures reporting 95% confidence intervals. Standardised response means were used to compare DT scores with criterion measures over time. For a cut‐off of 4 vs 5, sensitivity against HADS was 79%, specificity 81%; against GHQ‐12, sensitivity was 63%, specificity 83%; and against BSI‐18, sensitivity was 88%, specificity 74%. At both four and eight weeks, DT scores tended to change significantly in the same direction as the criterion measures. Ninety‐five percent of patients found completing the DT acceptable. The DT is valid and acceptable for use as a rapid screening instrument for patients in the UK with cancer. Our results indicate that it can be used to monitor change in psychological distress over time, but further work is needed to confirm this. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.1273

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 196

Authors
Gessler, S., Low, J., Daniells, E., Williams, R., Brough, V., Tookman, A., & Jones, L.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Gessler, S.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10-31
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
538-547
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2084011691
Cited by
196
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Marie Curie
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
Distress Thermometer, psychological distress screening, cancer patients, psychometric validation, anxiety and depression, sensitivity and specificity, criterion measures, change over time, palliative care, questionnaire acceptability
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Pain Measurement, Palliative Care, Personality Inventory, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Sick Role, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review