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
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 DT is capable of monitoring changes in psychosocial distress over time.
“The DT is capable of monitoring changes in psychosocial distress over time [46, 47].”
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