Search

Objective: Among patients living with advanced, life-limiting illness, reconciling the prospect of disease progression with future goals and expectations is a key psychological task, integral to treatment decision-making and emotional well-being. To date, this psychological process remains poorly understood with no available measurement tools. The present paper develops and validates a measurement model for operationalizing this psychological process., Methods: In Phase 1, concept elicitation interviews were conducted among Stage IV lung, gastrointestinal, and gynecologic cancer patients, their caregivers, and experts (N = 19), to further develop our conceptual framework centered on assimilation and accommodation coping. In Phase 2, draft self-report items of common assimilation and accommodation coping strategies were evaluated via patient cognitive interviews (N = 11)., Results: Phase 1 interviews identified several coping strategies, some of which aimed to reduce the perceived likelihood of disease progression (assimilation), and others aimed to integrate the likelihood into new goals and expectations (accommodation). The coping strategies appeared to manifest in patients' daily lives, and integrally related to their emotional well-being and how they think about treatments. Phase 2 cognitive interviews identified items to remove and modify, resulting in a 31-item measure assessing 10 assimilation and accommodation coping strategies., Conclusions: The present work derived a content-valid measure of the psychological process by which patients reconcile the prospect of disease progression with their goals and expectations. Further psychometric validation and use of the scale could identify intervention targets for enhancing patient decision-making and well-being., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to enhance the current understanding and interpretation of longitudinal change on tests of neurocognitive function in individuals with cancer. Scores on standard neuropsychological instruments may be impacted by practice effects and other random forms of error., Methods: The current study assessed the test-retest reliability of several tests and overarching cognitive domains comprising a neurocognitive battery typical of those used for research and clinical evaluation using relevant time frames. Practice effect-adjusted reliable change confidence intervals for test-retest difference scores based on a sample of patient-matched healthy controls are provided., Results: By applying reliable change confidence intervals to scores from two samples of breast cancer patients at post-treatment follow-up assessment, meaningful levels of detectable change in cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors were ascertained and indicate that standardized neuropsychological instruments may be subject to limitations in detection of subtle cognitive dysfunction over clinically relevant intervals, especially in patient samples with average to above average range baseline functioning., Conclusions: These results are discussed in relation to reported prevalence of cognitive change in breast cancer patients along with recommendations for study designs that enhance detection of treatment effects., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)