Purpose This study examined a novel intervention, dignity therapy, designed to address psychosocial and existential distress among terminally ill patients. Dignity therapy invites patients to discuss issues that matter most or that they would most want remembered. Sessions are transcribed and edited, with a returned final version that they can bequeath to a friend or family member. The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility of dignity therapy and determine its impact on various measures of psychosocial and existential distress. Patients and Methods Terminally ill inpatients and those receiving home-based palliative care services in Winnipeg, Canada, and Perth, Australia, were asked to complete pre- and postintervention measures of sense of dignity, depression, suffering, and hopelessness; sense of purpose, sense of meaning, desire for death, will to live, and suicidality; and a postintervention satisfaction survey. Results Ninety-one percent of participants reported being satisfied with ...

Dignity Therapy: A Novel Psychotherapeutic Intervention for Patients Near the End of Life

BACKGROUND
Based on evidence that psychologic distress often goes unrecognized although it is common among cancer patients, clinical practice guidelines recommend routine screening for distress. For this study, the authors sought to determine whether the single-item Distress Thermometer (DT) compared favorably with longer measures currently used to screen for distress.

METHODS
Patients (n = 380) who were recruited from 5 sites completed the DT and identified the presence or absence of 34 problems using a standardized list. Participants also completed the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and an 18-item version of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18), both of which have established cutoff scores for identifying clinically significant distress.

RESULTS
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses of DT scores yielded area under the curve estimates relative to the HADS cutoff score (0.80) and the BSI-18 cutoff scores (0.78) indicative of good overall accuracy. ROC analyses also showed that a DT cutoff score of 4 had optimal sensitivity and specificity relative to both the HADS and BSI-18 cutoff scores. Additional analyses indicated that, compared with patients who had DT scores < 4, patients who had DT scores ≥ 4 were more likely to be women, have a poorer performance status, and report practical, family, emotional, and physical problems (P ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS
Findings confirm that the single-item DT compares favorably with longer measures used to screen for distress. A DT cutoff score of 4 yielded optimal sensitivity and specificity in a general cancer population relative to established cutoff scores on longer measures. The use of this cutoff score identified patients with a range of problems that were likely to reflect psychologic distress. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

/pdf/screening-for-psychologic-distress-in-ambulatory-cancer-nwttuvydnd.pdf

Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients

BACKGROUND
The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF), an abbreviated version of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, measures each of 32 symptoms with respect to distress or frequency alone. A physical symptom subscale (PHYS), psychologic symptom subscale (PSYCH), and global distress index (GDI) can be derived from the Short Form. We validated the MSAS-SF in a population of cancer patients.

METHODS
Two hundred ninety-nine cancer patients examined at the Section of Hematology/Oncology completed the MSAS-SF and the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT-G). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS), extent of disease (EOD), and demographic data were assessed. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was used to assess internal reliability. MSAS-SF subscales were assessed against subscales of the FACT-G, the KPS, and EOD to determine criterion validity. Test–retest analysis was performed at 1 day and at 1 week.

RESULTS
The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the MSAS-SF subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The MSAS-SF subscales showed convergent validity with FACT subscales. Correlation coefficients were −0.74 (P < 0.001) for the PHYS and FACT-G physical well-being subscales, −0.68 (P < 0.001) for the PSYCH and FACT emotional well-being subscales, and −0.70 (P < 0.001) for GDI and FACT summary of quality-of-life subscales. The MSAS-SF subscales demonstrated convergent validity with performance status, inpatient status, and extent of disease. The test–retest correlation coefficients for the MSAS-SF subscales ranged from 0.86 to 0.94 at 1 day and from 0.40 to 0.84 for the 1 week group.

CONCLUSIONS
The MSAS-SF is a valid and easy to use instrument for symptom assessment. Cancer 2000;89:1162–71. Published 2000 American Cancer Society.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0142%2820000901%2989%3A5%3C1162%3A%3AAID-CNCR26%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Y

The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS‐SF)

BACKGROUND

The current study was conducted to assess symptom prevalence and symptom intensity and their relation to quality of life in medical oncology patients at a Veterans Affairs medical center.



METHODS

Consecutive inpatients and outpatients were asked to complete the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), and the Brief Pain Inventory. Symptoms then were analyzed by their relation to Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and quality of life.



RESULTS

Two hundred forty patients participated. The median number of symptoms was 8 per patient (range, 0–30 symptoms). The 5 most prevalent symptoms were lack of energy (62%), pain (59%), dry mouth (54%), shortness of breath (50%), and difficulty sleeping (45%). Patients with moderate intensity pain had a median number of 11 symptoms and patients with moderate intensity lack of energy had a median number of 13 symptoms. The number of intense symptoms increased as the KPS decreased (P < 0.001). Patients with moderately intense pain or fatigue also were more likely to experience nausea, dyspnea, and lack of appetite. The number of symptoms rated as present on the MSAS was found to correlate significantly with the FACT-G Sum Quality of Life score.



CONCLUSIONS

Intense symptoms were highly prevalent in this population. The presence of pain, lack of energy, or poor performance status should lead to comprehensive symptom assessment. Patients free of disease nevertheless still may experience intense symptoms. The number of symptoms present may be a helpful guide to quality of life. Routine comprehensive symptom assessment may identify a significant fraction of patients who urgently require intensive symptom palliation. Cancer 2000;88:1175–83. © 2000 American Cancer Society.

/pdf/symptom-and-quality-of-life-survey-of-medical-oncology-5dp5sy5rod.pdf

Symptom and quality of life survey of medical oncology patients at a veterans affairs medical center: a role for symptom assessment.

https://www.gynecologiconcology-online.net/article/S0090-8258(00)95908-0/pdf

Jean Mccarthylepore

Papers

Quality of Life of Women with Ovarian Cancer