CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Cancer survivorship and careHead and Neck Cancer StudiesHealth Education and Validation

A Systematic Review of Body Image Measures for People Diagnosed with Head and Neck Cancer (HNC)

Shunmuga Sundaram, Chindhu, Dhillon, Haryana M., Butow, Phyllis N., Sundaresan, Puma, Rutherford, Claudia·2019·Supportive Care in Cancer
DOI 10.1007/s00520-019-04919-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relatively common cancer which causes a significant health burden, impacting individuals physically and psychologically. HNC treatment may result in facial disfigurement, eating and communication difficulties, and body image disturbances. We aimed to (1) identify HNC-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess body image, (2) evaluate their conceptual coverage, (3) appraise their development process and psychometric properties, and (4) determine appropriate body image PROM(s) for use in the HNC setting.Methods Online databases were searched (July 2007-July 2017) for studies that assessed body image in patients with HNC. Studies were screened for eligibility. In addition, we searched three PROM databases for relevant PROMs. From available body image frameworks, we compiled a conceptual schema consisting of 18 clinically relevant body image issues important in the HNC setting, against which PROMs were assessed. Selected measures were appraised for psychometric characteristics, content, and readability.Results A total of 245 records were retrieved. 18 studies with PROMs met our inclusion criteria, reporting eight PROMs. The PROM databases searched yielded 62 measures. After screening, eleven measures were short-listed and appraised. The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS)-59, DAS-24, and body image scale (BIS) cover > 55% of issues within the body image conceptual schema; were developed based on literature, patient interviews, and clinician opinions; and have evidence of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.7), validity, and responsiveness.Conclusions We recommend the DAS-24 and BIS as having adequate coverage of HNC-related issues, and suitable for use in future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-019-04919-6

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shunmuga Sundaram, C., Dhillon, H. M., Butow, P. N., Sundaresan, P., & Rutherford, C.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Rutherford, Claudia
ORCID
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-06-15
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
3657-3666
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
DOI
10.1007/s00520-019-04919-6
OpenAlex
W2952289193
Cited by
29
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
head and neck cancer, body image, patient-reported outcome measures, facial disfigurement, body image scale, psychometric properties
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Body Image, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Psychometrics, Databases, Factual

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