ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of the head and neck cancer psychosocial distress scale (HNCPDS) to identify patients at high risk for psychological problems : a multicenter study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychosocial Barriers and Social Perceptions in Oncology Patients with Tracheostomy: Case-Control Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop the Head and Neck Cancer Psychosocial Distress Scale (HNCPDS) with the aim of identifying high-risk individuals for psychosocial distress among patients, and to assess its reliability, validity and applicability. Using the classical test theory, a total of 435 head and neck cancer patients from six tertiary hospitals in China were recruited for developing the HNCPDS. Delphi expert consultation and item analysis were used to improve the content validity of the preliminary HNCPDS. Factor analysis (FA) and Structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to test the structural validity of HNCPDS. Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Spearman-Brown coefficient and Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to test the internal consistency and retest reliability of HNCPDS. Multiple stepped-linear regression was used to analyze the risk factors of psychological disorder, and Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze the correlation between psychosocial distress and quality of life (QOL). The HNCPDS consisted of 14 items, which were divided into 3 subscales: 3 items for cancer discrimination, 5 items for anxiety and depression, and 6 items for social phobia. The HNCPDS had good validity [KMO coefficient was 0.947, Bartlett's test was 5027.496 (P < 0.001), Cumulative variance contribution rate was 75.416%, and all factor loadings were greater than 0.55], reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.954, Spearman-Brown coefficient was 0.955, test-retest reliability was 0.845) and acceptability [average completion time (14.31 ± 2.354 min) and effective completion rate of 90.63%]. Financial burden, sex, age and personality were found to be independent risk factors for HNCPDS (P < 0.05), and patients with higher HNCPDS scores reported a lower QOL (P < 0.01). The HNCPDS is effective and reliable in early identification and assessment of the level of psychosocial distress in patients with head and neck cancer, which can provide an effective basis for health education, psychological counseling, and social support in the future.
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.