BACKGROUND:The recently refined Demoralization Scale-II (DS-II) is a 16-item, self-report measure of demoralization. Its 2 factorsMeaning and Purpose and Distress and Coping Ability-demonstrate sound internal validity, including item fit, unidimensionality, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. The convergent and discriminant validity of the DS-II with various measures is reported here. METHODS: Patients who had cancer or other progressive diseases and were receiving palliative care (n 5 211) completed a battery of questionnaires, including the DS-II and measures of symptom burden, quality of life, depression, and attitudes toward the end of life. Spearman q correlations were determined to assess convergent validity. Mann-Whitney U tests with calculated effect sizes were used to examine discriminant validity and establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Cross-tabulation frequencies with chi-square analyses were used to examine discriminant validity with major depression. RESULTS: The DS-II demonstrated convergent validity with measures of psychological distress, quality of life, and attitudes toward the end of life. It also demonstrated discriminant validity, as the DS-II differentiated patients who had different functional performance levels and high/low symptoms, with a difference of 2 points between groups on the DS-II considered clinically meaningful. Furthermore, discriminant validity was demonstrated, as comorbidity with depression was not observed at moderate levels of demoralization. CONCLUSIONS: The DS-II has sound psychometric properties and is an appropriate measure of demoralization. Given its structural simplicity and brevity, it is likely to be a useful tool in meaning-centered therapies. Cancer 2016;122:2260-7. V C 2016 American Cancer Society.KEYWORDS: cancer, construct validity, convergent validity, demoralization, discriminant validity, external validity, revalidation. INTRODUCTIONThe Demoralization Scale-II (DS-II) is a recently refined and revalidated 16-item, self-report measure of demoralization. 1 Demoralization is a maladaptive coping response conceptualized as a loss of meaning and purpose, with feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. 2 It is understood to arise in response to a stressful event or situation, such as the suffering associated with the diagnosis or experience of an advanced cancer. 2 In our recent systematic 3 and conceptual 4 reviews, we provided a discussion on the differences between demoralization and depression and highlighted the finding that there is a level of overlap between these constructs. In a companion to this article in this issue of Cancer, we report the internal validity of the DS-II as a 2-factor model (comprising two 8-item factors: Meaning and Purpose and Distress and Coping Ability) that demonstrated psychometrically sound item fit, unidimensionality, and reliability in patients receiving palliative care. 1 The reduced number of items and the simplified response format make the DS-II more user-friendly in the advanced...

BACKGROUND:The Demoralization Scale (DS) was initially validated in 2004 to enable the measurement of demoralization in patients with advanced cancer. Subsequent shortcomings indicated the need for psychometric strengthening. Here, the authors report on the refinement and revalidation of the DS to form the DS-II, specifically reporting the scale's internal validity. METHODS: Patients with cancer or other progressive diseases who were receiving palliative care (n 5 211) completed a revised version of the 24-item DS and a measure of symptom burden (the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale). Exploratory factor analysis and Rasch modeling were used to evaluate, modify, and revalidate the scale, providing information about dimensionality, suitability of response format, item fit, item bias, and item difficulty. Test-retest reliability was examined for 58 symptomatically stable patients at a 5-day follow-up. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis supported a 22-item, 2-component model. Separate Rasch modeling of each component resulted in collapsing the response option categories and removing 3 items from each component. Both final 8-item subscales met Rasch model expectations and were appropriate to sum as a 16-item total score. The DS-II demonstrated internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Meaning and Purpose subscale: a 5 .84; intraclass correlation [ICC] 5 0.68; Distress and Coping Ability subscale: a 5 .82; ICC 5 0.82; total DS: a 5 .89; ICC 5 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The DS-II is a 3-point response, self-report scale comprising 16 items and 2 subscales. Given its revalidation, psychometric strengthening, and simplification, the DS-II is an improved and more practical measure of demoralization for research and clinical use. External validation of the DS-II will be reported subsequently. Cancer 2016;122:2251-9. V C 2016 American Cancer Society.KEYWORDS: psychometrics, cancer, reliability, validity, adjustment, coping behavior, demoralization, Rasch modeling. INTRODUCTIONDemoralization has become increasingly recognized in palliative care as a clinical issue requiring assessment and treatment. 1,2 Understood as a state of maladaptive coping, demoralization develops with symptoms of hopelessness and helplessness associated with loss of purpose and meaning in life. 1 In a recent systematic review of 25 studies, clinical prevalence rates for demoralization ranged from 13% to 18% in patients with progressive diseases like cancer. 3 The morale of any patient fluctuates dimensionally from optimism to mild disheartenment, to greater despondency, and potentially to deep despair, which can be associated with a desire for hastened death. 4 Thus, the importance of measuring demoralization has been emphasized with reference to the risk of suicide and its potential relevance in end-of-life decision making. 1 Access to a psychometrically sound measure aids in the clinical assessment of demoralization. 5 Our preliminary validation of the Demoralization Scale (DS) in 2004 created a 24-item self-report scale that proved to be a use...

Among men, depression is often unrecognised and untreated. Men employed in male-dominated industries and occupations may be particularly vulnerable. However, efforts to develop tailored workplace interventions are hampered by lack of prevalence data. A systematic review of studies reporting prevalence rates for depression in male dominated workforce groups was undertaken. Studies were included if they were published between 1990 - June 2012 in English, examined adult workers in male-dominated industries or occupations (> 70% male workforce), and used clinically relevant indicators of depression. Twenty studies met these criteria. Prevalence of depression ranged from 0.0% to 28.0%. Five studies reported significantly lower prevalence rates for mental disorders among male-dominated workforce groups than comparison populations, while six reported significantly higher rates. Eight studies additionally found significantly higher levels of depression in male-dominated groups than comparable national data. Overall, the majority of studies found higher levels of depression among workers in male-dominated workforce groups. There is a need to address the mental health of workers in male-dominated groups. The workplace provides an important but often overlooked setting to develop tailored strategies for vulnerable groups.

Background and Aims: Working conditions are an important health determinant. Employment factors can negatively affect mental health (MH), but there is little research on MH risk factors in male-dominated industries (MDI). Method: A systematic review of risk factors for anxiety and depression disorders in MDI was undertaken. MDI comprised ≥ 70% male workers and included agriculture, construction, mining, manufacturing, transport and utilities. Major electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Informit, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus) were searched. Each study was categorised according to National Health and Medical Research Council's hierarchy of evidence and study quality was assessed according to six methodological criteria. Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Four categories of risk were identified: individual factors, team environment, work conditions and work–home interference. The main risk factors associated with anxiety and depression in MDI were poor health and lifestyles, unsupportive workplace relationships, job overload and job demands. Some studies indicated a higher risk of anxiety and depression for blue-collar workers. Conclusion: Substantial gaps exist in the evidence. Studies with stronger methodologies are required. Available evidence suggests that comprehensive primary, secondary and tertiary prevention approaches to address MH risk factors in MDI are necessary. There is a need for organisationally focused workplace MH policies and interventions.

Social determinants, or the conditions in which individuals are born, grow, live, work and age, can result in inequities in health and well-being. However, to-date little research has examined alcohol use and alcohol-related problems from an inequities and social determinants perspective. This study reviewed the evidence base regarding inequities in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related health outcomes in Australia and identified promising approaches for promoting health equity. Fair Foundations: the VicHealth framework for health equity was used as an organizing schema. The review found that social determinants can strongly influence inequities in alcohol consumption and related harms. In general, lower socioeconomic groups experience more harm than wealthier groups with the same level of alcohol consumption. While Australia has implemented numerous alcohol-related interventions and policies, most do not explicitly aim to reduce inequities, and some may inadvertently exacerbate existing inequities. Interventions with the greatest potential to decrease inequities in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms include town planning, zoning and licensing to prevent disproportionate clustering of outlets in disadvantaged areas; interventions targeting licensed venues; and interventions targeting vulnerable populations. Interventions that may worsen inequities include national guidelines, technological interventions and public drinking bans. There is a need for further research into the best methods for reducing inequities in alcohol consumption and related harms.