Predictors of emotional distress a year or more after diagnosis of cancer: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Why some people recover emotionally after diagnosis and treatment of cancer and others do not is poorly understood. To identify factors around the time of diagnosis that predict longer-term distress is a necessary step in developing interventions to reduce patients' vulnerability. This review identified the demographic, clinical, social, and psychological factors available at or within 3 months of diagnosis that are reliable predictors of emotional distress at least 12 months later. METHODS: A systematic search of literature for prospective studies addressing our research question and predicting a range of distress outcomes was conducted. Thirty-nine papers (reporting 36 studies) were subjected to narrative synthesis of the evidence. RESULTS: There was no consistent evidence that demographic, clinical, or social factors reliably predicted longer-term distress. Of the psychological factors examined, only baseline distress (significant in 26 of 30 relevant papers; 24 of 28 studies) and neuroticism (significant in all 5 papers/studies that examined it) consistently predicted longer-term distress. The heterogeneity of included studies, particularly in populations studied and methodology, precluded meta-analytic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports current clinical guidance advising early assessment of distress as a marker of vulnerability to persistent problems. Additionally, neuroticism is also indicated as a useful marker of vulnerability. However, the review also highlights that more sophisticated research designs, capable of identifying the psychological processes that underlie the association between these marker variables and persistent distress, are needed before more effective early interventions can be developed.

Clinical utility of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 in people with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30) has been widely used to assess metacognitive beliefs and processes linked to emotional disorders. The aim of the present study was to test the utility of the MCQ-30 in assessing metacognitions in people with epilepsy. METHODS: Three hundred forty-nine people with epilepsy completed the MCQ-30 and self-report measures of anxiety and depression at two time points, 12 months apart. Factor analyses and structural equation modeling were used to test the factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity of the MCQ-30. RESULTS: Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses supported the original five-factor structure and demonstrated that each factor had good to excellent levels of internal consistency. CONCLUSION: The MCQ-30 is a robust measure of metacognitive beliefs and processes and has clinical utility in PWE.

A Prospective Study of the Association of Metacognitive Beliefs and Processes with Persistent Emotional Distress After Diagnosis of Cancer.

Two hundred and six patients, diagnosed with primary breast or prostate cancer completed self-report questionnaires on two occasions: before treatment (T1) and 12 months later (T2). The questionnaires included: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Impact of Events Scale; the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) and the Illness Perceptions Questionnaire-revised. A series of regression analyses indicated that metacognitive beliefs at T1 predicted between 14 and 19 % of the variance in symptoms of anxiety, depression and trauma at T2 after controlling for age and gender. For all three outcomes, the MCQ-30 subscale 'negative beliefs about worry' made the largest individual contribution with 'cognitive confidence' also contributing in each case. For anxiety, a third metacognitive variable, 'positive beliefs about worry' also predicted variance in T2 symptoms. In addition, hierarchical analyses indicated that metacognitive beliefs explained a small but significant amount of variance in T2 anxiety (2 %) and T2 depression (4 %) over and above that explained by demographic variables, T1 symptoms and T1 illness perceptions. The findings suggest that modifying metacognitive beliefs and processes has the potential to alleviate distress associated with cancer.

The association of metacognitive beliefs with emotional distress after diagnosis of cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Emotional distress after a diagnosis of cancer is normal and, for most people, will diminish over time. However, a significant minority of patients with cancer experience persistent or recurrent symptoms of emotional distress for which they need help. A model developed in mental health, the self-regulatory executive function model (S-REF), specifies that maladaptive metacognitive beliefs and processes, including persistent worry, are key to understanding why such emotional problems persist. This cross-sectional study explored, for the first, time whether metacognitive beliefs were associated with emotional distress in a cancer population, and whether this relationship was mediated by worry, as predicted by the S-REF model. METHOD: Two hundred twenty-nine participants within 3 months of diagnosis of, and before treatment for, primary breast or prostate cancer completed self-report questionnaires measuring anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, metacognitive beliefs, worry, and illness perceptions. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed that metacognitive beliefs were associated with symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD, and explained additional variance in these outcomes after controlling for age, gender, and illness perceptions. Structural equation modeling was consistent with cross-sectional hypotheses derived from the theory that metacognitive beliefs cause and maintain distress both directly and indirectly by driving worry. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide promising first evidence that the S-REF model may be usefully applied in cancer. Further study is required to establish the predictive and clinical utility of these findings.

Measuring metacognition in cancer: validation of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30).

OBJECTIVE: The Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 assesses metacognitive beliefs and processes which are central to the metacognitive model of emotional disorder. As recent studies have begun to explore the utility of this model for understanding emotional distress after cancer diagnosis, it is important also to assess the validity of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 for use in cancer populations. METHODS: 229 patients with primary breast or prostate cancer completed the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale pre-treatment and again 12 months later. The structure and validity of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 were assessed using factor analyses and structural equation modelling. RESULTS: Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses provided evidence supporting the validity of the previously published 5-factor structure of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30. Specifically, both pre-treatment and 12 months later, this solution provided the best fit to the data and all items loaded on their expected factors. Structural equation modelling indicated that two dimensions of metacognition (positive and negative beliefs about worry) were significantly associated with anxiety and depression as predicted, providing further evidence of validity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide initial evidence that the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 is a valid measure for use in cancer populations.

Reconciling the principle of patient autonomy with the practice of informed consent: decision-making about prognostication in uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Influential views on how to protect patient autonomy in clinical care have been greatly shaped by rational and deliberative models of decision-making. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to understand how the general principle of respecting autonomy can be reconciled with the local reality of obtaining consent in a clinical situation that precludes extended deliberation. METHOD: We interviewed 22 patients with intraocular melanoma who had been offered cytogenetic tumour typing to indicate whether the tumour was likely to shorten life considerably. They were interviewed before and/or up to 36 months after receiving cytogenetic results. Patients described their decision-making about the test and how they anticipated and used the results. Their accounts were analysed qualitatively, using inconsistencies at a descriptive level to guide interpretative analysis. RESULTS: Patients did not see a decision to be made. For those who accepted testing, their choice reflected trust of what the clinicians offered them. Patients anticipated that a good prognosis would be reassuring, but this response was not evident. Although they anticipated that a poor prognosis would enable end-of-life planning, adverse results were interpreted hopefully. In general, the meaning of the test for patients was not separable from ongoing care. CONCLUSION: Models of decision-making and associated consent procedures that emphasize patients' active consideration of isolated decision-making opportunities are invalid for clinical situations such as this. Hence, responsibility for ensuring that a procedure protects patients' interests rests with practitioners who offer it and cannot be delegated to patients.

Factors influencing surgeons' decisions in elective cosmetic surgery consultations.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for surgeons' decisions about whether to offer cosmetic surgery are ineffective. Therefore, surgeons have to make difficult decisions on a case-by-case basis. The authors sought to identify the patient variables that influence surgeons' decisions in practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study first delineated, from observation of consultations and interviews with surgeons and other staff, variables that might influence their decisions. Then, in a cross-sectional survey of patients seeking cosmetic surgery, the authors measured these variables and tested whether they predicted the surgeons' decisions to offer surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 6 consultant plastic surgeons who assess cosmetic surgery referrals and 276 new patients aged 16 years or older referred to these surgeons. RESULTS: The qualitative study suggested that, as well as clinical factors (the probability of a satisfactory surgical outcome and the risks v. benefits of surgery), surgery was more likely to be offered where it was of low cost (i.e., minor skin surgery), physical symptoms or dysfunction were present, and abnormality of appearance was extreme. The role of patients' quality of life was unclear. The quantitative study confirmed that the probability of surgery was increased where requests were for minor skin procedures and by abnormality of patients' appearance. In patients seeking major body procedures, surgery was less likely when patients reported poor quality of life. CONCLUSION: Surgeons' decisions about whether to offer elective cosmetic surgery follow systematic rules. By incorporating the factors that surgeons use in their decision making, more effective guidelines about elective cosmetic surgery provision than are presently available could be developed.

Is cosmetic surgery an effective psychotherapeutic intervention? A systematic review of the evidence.

PURPOSE: Elective cosmetic surgery (ECS) in the absence of physical indications is often performed to improve psychosocial function. Third-party funders need evidence of its effectiveness if they are to respond in an evidence-based way to increasing demand in the context of constrained resources. Our first aim was to review recent evidence of psychosocial outcome in a way that was systematic with respect to study inclusion and methodological evaluation. Our second aim was to review evidence for the validity of currently used selection criteria. METHOD: Electronic and manual literature and database search identified prospective cohort or controlled studies of psychosocial outcomes of surgery performed for appearance reasons reported in English from 1992 to 2004. Data were extracted to describe outcomes and evaluate methodological quality. RESULTS: Twenty-three reports of 22 separate studies were reviewed. All were prospective observational studies and most provided low standards of evidence because of the absence of comparison groups, short follow-up periods and loss to follow-up. The evidence suggests that breast reduction improves health-related quality of life, but does not indicate enduring improvement in quality of life after other procedures, or enduring improvement in mental health, self-esteem or body image after any procedure. Similarly, there was insufficient evidence for the validity of criteria for patient selection. The negative conclusions reflect, not the existence of negative evidence, but methodological limitations of published research. CONCLUSION: The problem for third-party funders is that, although evidence does not justify the continued general provision of ECS in the absence of physical need, it is not strong enough to justify withholding such treatment. Even though randomised controlled trials are probably impractical, we identify several improvements in design whereby future prospective cohort studies could provide higher standards of evidence.

The psychological and social characteristics of patients referred for NHS cosmetic surgery: quantifying clinical need.

PURPOSE: Elective cosmetic surgery is expanding in the UK in both the public and private sectors. Because resources are constrained, many cosmetic procedures are being excluded within the National Health Service. If guidelines on who can receive such surgery are to be evidence-based, information is needed about the level of dysfunction in patients referred for elective surgery and whether this is related to their degree of physical abnormality. METHOD: Consecutive patients referred to a regional plastic surgery and burns unit for assessment for elective cosmetic surgery completed standardised measures of physical and psychosocial dysfunction, and indicated their perception of the degree of their abnormality and their preoccupation with it. We distinguished between patients referred for physical reasons or appearance reasons only, and compared levels of physical and psychosocial dysfunction in each with published values for community and clinical samples. Surgeons indicated patients' degree of objective abnormality, and we identified the relationship of dysfunction with perceived and objective abnormality and preoccupation. RESULTS: Whether patients sought surgery for physical or appearance reasons, physical function was normal. Those seeking surgery for appearance reasons only had moderate psychosocial dysfunction, but were not as impaired as clinical groups with psychological problems. Patients seeking the correction of minor skin lesions for purely appearance reasons reported excellent physical and psychosocial function. Level of function was related (negatively) to patients' preoccupation with abnormality rather than to their perceived or objective abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: In general, patients referred for elective cosmetic surgery did not present with significant levels of dysfunction. Moreover, levels of functioning were related to preoccupation rather than to objective abnormality. Therefore, for most patients, whether surgical treatment is generally appropriate is questionable. Future guidelines must seek to identify the small minority who do have a clinical need for surgery.

International development of the Parents' Index of Quality of Life in Atopic Dermatitis (PIQoL-AD).

OBJECTIVE: The international development of the Parents' Index of Quality of Life in Atopic Dermatitis (PIQoL-AD), a quality of life (QoL) instrument specific to parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD) is described. METHOD: The instrument was developed simultaneously in several countries. Its content was derived from 65 qualitative interviews with parents in the UK, Netherlands and Italy. The measure was then produced for the UK, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France, US and Spain. Field-test interviews were conducted with approximately 20 patients in each country to assess face and content validity. A two time-point survey was conducted with between 45 and 328 parents in each country to finalise the instrument through application of the Rasch model and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the final instrument. RESULTS: Application of the Rasch model to the survey data identified the final 28-item version. All language versions had good item fit, test-retest reliability (above 0.85), internal consistency and promising validity. CONCLUSIONS: The PIQoL-AD is a valuable instrument for inclusion in clinical trials and routine clinical practice. It provides distinct and complementary information to that of existing dermatology-specific measures and has been shown to be responsive to changes in QoL in clinical trials.