Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691670›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

A common metric for questionnaires on health anxiety in cancer patients.

Michael Friedrich, Thomas Schulte, Merle Malburg, Andreas Hinz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael FriedrichDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Thomas SchulteRehabilitation Clinic Bad Oexen, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
Merle MalburgRehabilitation Clinic Bad Oexen, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
Andreas HinzDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After a cancer diagnosis, life is accompanied by worries, concerns and fears that the disease will recur or worsen. These can be normal and useful reactions but may also become so severe that they interfere with everyday functioning. A challenge for patient care is that the theoretical similarity of these reactions, is not consistently conceptualized in practice, hence the empirical comparability of their measures is unclear. Here we intend to show that the theoretical similarity is also empirically justified, and we present a common metric in graphical form that allows direct comparisons between different questionnaires. A total of 1,733 cancer patients completed the Fear of Progression Questionnaire Short Form, Questionnaire on Stress in Cancer Patients-revised version, Concerns About Recurrence Questionnaire, the subscales Health Distress and Negative Health Outlook of the EORTC QLQ-SURV100, and the Whiteley Index. Using a model based on item response theory, we linked the score values of the individual questionnaires. The main outcome of this study is a diagram that can be used to convert the respective values of eight questionnaires on health anxiety to another. All instruments showed a reliability above 0.75 near the mean health anxiety level. The common metric can be used to compare measurements with these questionnaires in terms of the level of health anxiety. Additionally, the reliability of the instruments can be judged at different levels of anxiety. This allows for a better comparability of test results and facilitates communication about the results among experts and with patients.

Indexed as

cancercommon metricconversionfearhealth anxietyprogressionrecurrenceworry

Identifiers

PMID39691670
PMCPMC11649417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.