ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and validation and risk factor analysis of the colorectal cancer psychosocial distress scale.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Psychosocial distress is a key factor affecting the quality of life (QOL) and treatment outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Owing to the lack of clinically integrated and validated screening tools, the current practice of screening CRC patients for psychosocial distress is inconsistent. This study aimed to create and assess a CRC Psychosocial Distress Scale (CRCPDS) as a working standard for the clinical screening of psychosocial distress levels in CRC patients. Based on the improved classical test theory, 59 patients with CRC were recruited to develop the CRCPDS and 441 patients were recruited to validate the CRCPDS. Delphi expert consultation and item analysis were used to improve the CRCPDS, and validate its reliability and validity using factor analysis and structural equation model. The CRCPDS consisted of 14 items and was divided into three subscales: 7 items for ostomy pouch stigma, 3 items for self-deprecation, and 4 items for social isolation. The CRCPDS demonstrated strong validity (I-FVIs > 0.85, I-CVIs > 0.80; CVCR = 76.832%, AVE > 0.50, CR > 0.70; RMSEA = 0.062, GFI = 0.923, CFI = 0.972, NFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.964) and reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.949, Spearman-Brown coefficient = 0.929, ICC = 0.865). Patients under 60 years old, economically disadvantaged, post colostomy, and introverted had stronger psychosocial distress (P < 0.05), and those with greater psychosocial distress reported a lower QOL (P < 0.01). CRC patients generally experience significant psychosocial distress, and the CRCPDS is effective and reliable in the early identification of psychosocial distress. It provides a standard for assessing the level of psychosocial distress and is suitable for implementation into clinical screening workflows.
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.