Screening and assessment for cancer patients' psychosocial support needs: Development and validation of the psychosocial risk questionnaire.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial factors can negatively influence the ability to cope with cancer-specific therapy. To identify high-risk patients and to offer need-based care concerning social issues, valid, reliable, and economic instruments are needed. This study aims to develop a tool assessing psychosocial support needs and analyze its psychometric properties. METHODS: Based on an extensive literature search, items for the scale of psychosocial risks (PSR) were developed to assess the need for psychosocial support. Overall, N = 343 participants with cancer took part in the study to investigate the psychometric properties of the PSR. The factor structure was examined by using a principal component analysis. Correlations with criteria-related constructs determined the convergent validity. Cut-off scores for the PSR were selected based on receiver-operating characteristics and the calculation of Youden indices. RESULTS: The principal component analysis suggests a two-factor structure: (1) Psychosocial support need to ensure medical and social care services, and (2) Support need for coping with problems. The predicted correlations confirm the convergent validity. Both scales showed excellent internal consistency (Ensure medical and social care services: Omega = 0.94) and (Coping with problems: Omega = 0.90). CONCLUSION: The newly developed scale can provide helpful information regarding psychosocial support needs to professionals (psychotherapists, psychologists, physicians, and social workers) in the psycho-oncological field. Based on this information, specific and personalized interventions for cancer patients can be offered. The PSR is appropriate for assessing specific psychosocial needs to support cancer patients.

An item analysis according to the Rasch model of the German 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0).

PURPOSE: The World Health Organization Disability Assessent Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) assesses disability in individuals irrespective of their health condition. Previous studies validated the usefulness of the WHODAS 2.0 using classical test theory. This study is the first investigating the psychometric properties of the 12-items WHODAS 2.0 in patients with cancer using item analysis according to the Rasch model. METHODS: In total, 350 cancer patients participated in the study. Rasch analysis of the 12-items version of the WHODAS 2.0 was conducted and included testing unidimensionality, local independence, and testing for differential item functioning (DIF) with regard to age, gender, type of cancer, presence of metastases, psycho-oncological support, and duration of disease. RESULTS: After accounting for local dependence, which was mainly found across items of the same WHODAS domain, satisfactory overall fit to the Rasch model was established (χ2 = 36.14, p = 0.07) with good reliability (PSI = 0.82) and unidimensionality of the scale. DIF was found for gender (testlet 'Life activities') and age (testlet 'Getting around/Self-care'), but the size of DIF was not substantial. CONCLUSION: Overall, the analysis results according to the Rasch model support the use of the WHODAS 2.0 12-item version as a measure of disability in cancer patients.

Critical consideration of assessment methods for clinically significant changes of mental distress after psycho-oncological interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Considering the heterogeneity of cancer entities and the associated disease progression, personalized care of patients is increasingly emphasized in psycho-oncology. This individualization makes the use of measurements of individual clinically significant change important when studying the efficacy and effectiveness of psycho-oncological care. Two conceptualizations for the measurement of clinical significance are critically contrasted in this study: the Reliable Change Index (RCI) and the Minimal Important Difference (MID) method. METHODS: In total, 2,121 cancer patients participated in the study and a subsample of 708 patients was reassessed about 4 months later. Psychological distress was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. We evaluated two measures of clinical significance (RCI, MID) by comparing the respective numbers of improved, unimproved, and deteriorated patients. RESULTS: Individually significant changes were observed with both methods; however, determined rates of improvement differed substantially: MID (66.67%) and RCI (48.23%). Most importantly, according to MID, 17.93% of patients were identified as being improved, although their respective improvements were not statistically significant and thus unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of RCI outweigh MID, and therefore, the RCI is recommended as a measure to assess change.