ArticleBioPsychoSocial medicine2023
Validation of the brief Adjustment Disorder New Modules with Australian oncology patients.
Article in BioPsychoSocial medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mental health during and after the COVID-19 pandemic - a longitudinal study over 42 months in five European countries.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Research progress on the psychological burden and intervention measures in cancer patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence suggests that up to 30% of cancer patients may meet the criteria for adjustment disorder. However, no assessment instruments have been validated for use with cancer patients. The Adjustment Disorder New Module (ADNM)-8 and ADNM-4 are brief screening tools for adjustment disorder mapped directly to the new ICD-11 criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the factor structure and validity of both instruments in an Australian sample of adult oncology patients.
methodsA total of 405 participants with a cancer diagnosis were recruited online from across Australia. Participants reported cancer-specific information, such as time since diagnosis, treatment stage, cancer stage, type of cancer, and the following questionnaires: 8-item Adjustment Disorder New Module (ADNM-8), the World Health Organisation Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and the short form Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). The predictiveness of stressors was assessed using multiple regression analysis and the structure of the ADNM-8 and the ADNM-4 was tested using confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsSix previously tested models were examined, and the results suggested a 2-factor structure reflecting the two ICD-11 diagnostic criteria clusters of preoccupation with the stressor and failure to adapt was a good fit for both scales. The ADNM-4 outperformed the longer version of the scale on numerous fit indices though the ADNM-8 and ADNM-4 were highly correlated. Correlations of both scales with the psychological distress scale, the stress subscale, and the wellbeing index indicated good construct validity.
conclusionsOur results suggest that the ADNM-8 and ADNM-4 are useful screening tools for assessing adjustment disorder symptoms in cancer patients. The prompt screening of cancer patients encourages early intervention for those at risk of adaptation difficulties and informs research and clinical decisions regarding appropriate treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.