Psycho-oncology · 2024
Confirmatory validation of the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool-Patients: A brief patient-reported outcome measure assessing psychological distress in malignant mesothelioma patients.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bonafede Michela, Franzoi Isabella Giulia, Sauta Maria Domenica, Marinaccio Alessandro, Mensi Carolina, Rugarli Sabrina, Migliore Enrica, Cozzi Ilaria, Cavone Domenica, Vimercati Luigi, Grosso Federica, Bertolotti Marinella, Raimondi Giulia, Innamorati Marco, Granieri Antonella
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Psychological suffering in patients with Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is different from the one experienced by patients with other cancers due to its occupational or environmental etiology and its peculiar symptomatology and prognosis (i.e., poor prognosis, reduced effectiveness of the therapies, poor quality of residual life, and advanced age at the time of diagnosis). Therefore, the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool-Patients (MPDT-P) has been developed to evaluate the specific profile of psychological suffering in this population. This paper describes the item selection, factor analysis, and psychometric evaluation of the revised MPDT-P.
METHODS: The analyses of the current work aimed to confirm the factorial structure found in the first version of the MPDT-P. In the case of nonfit, it aimed to find an alternative structure and causes of nonfit in the model. The search for the fit of the factorial model was conducted using a Bayesian approach.
RESULTS: The two-factor model reported in the first version of the instrument did not fit the data. Confirmatory Bayesian analyses showed adequate fit for the three-factor solution. Based on the content of the items, we labeled the factors as dysfunctional emotions, claims for justice, and anxieties about the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating the MPDT-P into clinical practice could help clinicians gain insight into the specific suffering related to MM and investigate potential differences related to different occupational and environmental exposure contexts.
METHODS: The analyses of the current work aimed to confirm the factorial structure found in the first version of the MPDT-P. In the case of nonfit, it aimed to find an alternative structure and causes of nonfit in the model. The search for the fit of the factorial model was conducted using a Bayesian approach.
RESULTS: The two-factor model reported in the first version of the instrument did not fit the data. Confirmatory Bayesian analyses showed adequate fit for the three-factor solution. Based on the content of the items, we labeled the factors as dysfunctional emotions, claims for justice, and anxieties about the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating the MPDT-P into clinical practice could help clinicians gain insight into the specific suffering related to MM and investigate potential differences related to different occupational and environmental exposure contexts.