Frontiers in psychology · 2022
Preliminary validation of a brief PROM assessing psychological distress in patients with malignant mesothelioma: The mesothelioma psychological distress tool-Patients.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Guglielmucci Fanny, Bonafede Michela, Azzolina Danila, Marinaccio Alessandro, Franzoi Isabella Giulia, Migliore Enrica, Mensi Carolina, Chellini Elisabetta, Romeo Elisa, Grosso Federica, Granieri Antonella
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Psychological suffering in malignant mesothelioma (MM) differs from that in other cancers because of its occupational etiology, and we aimed to develop specific patient-reported outcome measures to assess it.
METHODS: We used a multi-method prospective observational multicentric study (N = 149), and a preliminary questionnaire validation was performed through a Bayesian approach.
RESULTS: Item analysis showed a good internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.79 [95% CI = 0.74-0.93]. Twenty of the 41 initial items were selected as posterior 95% highest density interval factor loading standardized effect size fell outside of the region of practical equivalence. Bayesian exploratory factor analysis showed a two-factor structure: (1) Trauma-related reactions (TR, 13 items) and (2) Claim for justice (CJ, 7 items), confirmed by the Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis. Latent factors were poorly correlated (Posterior median: 0.13; 95% CI = -0.079 to 0.323). The 90% root mean square error of approximation posterior median was 0.04 [90% CI = 0.03-0.58]; the 90% chi-square posterior median was 242 [90% CI = 209-287].
CONCLUSION: Psychological suffering in MM patients implies negative cognitive, emotional, and somatic reactions related to the traumatic impact of the disease and the need to obtain justice through economic compensation. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool-Patients could be a promising and reliable instrument to assess MM patients' psychological distress.
METHODS: We used a multi-method prospective observational multicentric study (N = 149), and a preliminary questionnaire validation was performed through a Bayesian approach.
RESULTS: Item analysis showed a good internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.79 [95% CI = 0.74-0.93]. Twenty of the 41 initial items were selected as posterior 95% highest density interval factor loading standardized effect size fell outside of the region of practical equivalence. Bayesian exploratory factor analysis showed a two-factor structure: (1) Trauma-related reactions (TR, 13 items) and (2) Claim for justice (CJ, 7 items), confirmed by the Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis. Latent factors were poorly correlated (Posterior median: 0.13; 95% CI = -0.079 to 0.323). The 90% root mean square error of approximation posterior median was 0.04 [90% CI = 0.03-0.58]; the 90% chi-square posterior median was 242 [90% CI = 209-287].
CONCLUSION: Psychological suffering in MM patients implies negative cognitive, emotional, and somatic reactions related to the traumatic impact of the disease and the need to obtain justice through economic compensation. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool-Patients could be a promising and reliable instrument to assess MM patients' psychological distress.