CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Cancer survivorship and careMental Health Treatment and AccessGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Lung cancer stigma and depression: validation of the lung cancer stigma inventory

Open access
Ostroff, Jamie S., Riley, Kristen E., Shen, Megan J., Atkinson, Thomas M., Williamson, Timothy J., Hamann, Heidi A.·2019·Psycho-Oncology
DOI 10.1002/pon.5033PMC PMC6506363
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: In an effort to provide further evidence for the validity of the Lung Cancer Stigma Inventory (LCSI), this paper examined group differences in lung cancer stigma for patients who report clinically significant depressive symptoms and established a suggested scoring benchmark to identify patients with clinically meaningful levels of lung cancer stigma. Methods: Patients (N = 231) who were diagnosed with lung cancer and treated within the past 12 months at one of two National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐designated Cancer Centers located in the northeast and southern parts of the United States completed a single battery of questionnaires examining lung cancer stigma and depressed mood. Group differences, bivariate correlations, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted. Results: Slightly more than a third of patients (35.9%) reported an elevated level of depression. There was a significant correlation (r = 0.44) between lung cancer stigma and depressive mood. The ROC curve analysis indicated an area under curve (AUC) of 0.71. A LCSI cutoff score of 37.5 yielded the optimal ratio of sensitivity (0.93) to specificity (0.70) for identifying patients with clinically meaningful lung cancer stigma. Conclusions: Consistent with prior work, lung cancer stigma, as measured by the LCSI, was found to be moderately associated with depressed mood. Clinical investigators may use an LCSI total score above 37.5 (ie, greater than or equal to 38 on the LCSI scale of integer scores) as a clinical threshold for identifying patients who may be experiencing clinically meaningful stigma and may benefit from stigma‐reducing interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.5033

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and lack of knowledge about the consequences of continued smoking versus quitting are five core processes that have predicted smoking frequency, cessation, and relapse in cancer patients.

    “These five core processes have predicted smoking frequency,33,34,36 cessation,33,35,36 and relapse in cancer patients.35”

    From Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results section (page unavailable) reports an association between lung cancer stigma and depressive symptoms and compares stigma by smoking status. The Methods section (page unavailable) defines smoking-status categories, but our copy does not report whether the five named processes predict smoking frequency, cessation, or relapse. Searched for smoking cessation, relapse, frequency, and knowledge about continued smoking versus quitting. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Hamann HA, Riley KE, Park ER, Carter-Harris L, Studts JL, Ostroff JS, editors. Lung cancer survivorship needs assessment: a scoping review. Poster presented at the: International Psycho-Oncology Society Conference; 2017 August; Berlin, Germany.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ostroff, J. S., Riley, K. E., Shen, M. J., Atkinson, T. M., Williamson, T. J., & Hamann, H. A.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Ostroff, Jamie S.
ORCID
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04-16
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
1011-1017
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
DOI
10.1002/pon.5033
PMC
PMC6506363
OpenAlex
W2916307329
Cited by
54
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Lung Cancer Partnership
  • Lung Cancer Research Foundation
  • National Cancer Institute (K07CA207580, P30CA008748, R03193986, R03CA154016, T32CA009461)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
depression, depressive symptoms, cut-off values, cancer patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Area Under Curve, Social Stigma

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