A systematic review on the use of the emotion thermometer in individuals diagnosed with cancer

Abstract

Objective: Physiological and psychological sequelae are frequent after a cancer diagnosis and also on the long term. Screening could help detect psychological distress early and thus enable timely provision of adequate treatment. The emotion thermometer (ET) is a validated screening tool including five dimensions (distress, anxiety, depression, anger, and need-for-help). Reviewing the literature, we aimed to describe (a) the validity and (b) the application of the ET.Methods: Six databases were systematically searched for studies using the ET in individuals diagnosed with cancer. Included studies were critically appraised for methodological quality. ET validity and application were narratively synthesized.Results: We identified 580 records eligible for title-abstract screening. Seventeen studies based on 13 different populations were included. Validation studies (5 of 17) concluded that the ET is sensitive to distress detection, delivering prompt and accurate results with no negative impact on clinic visit time. Furthermore, its use is accepted in patients and clinicians. The remaining 12 exploratory studies applied the ET for screening purposes (3 of 12), as outcome measure (6 of 12), or as predictor variable measure (3 of 12). Most studies were conducted in Europe (11 of 17), and 7 of the 12 exploratory studies used the recommended cutoff (greater than or equal to 4). Study populations were mostly female (9 of 13) with a mean age greater than 50 years (12 of 13) at study. Conclusions:Publications on distress screening with the ET are scarce, especially among young populations. However, research and studies' recommendations support the ET's utility as a valid and feasible tool for distress screening including anxiety and depression and suggest its implementation as part of a structured program for early screening in cancer care.

Distress and Spiritual Well-Being in Brazilian Patients Initiating Chemotherapy during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Following Kang’s recommendations [ 37 ] for controlling type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) errors, the calculation was performed a priori, and the power of the effect was determined based on a previous study with a similar methodological design [ 10 ]. The result was a sample of 91 patients who were considered to have borderline representativeness, between moderate and high, according to systematic review [ 38 ].…”

Screening for Psychological Distress in Vietnamese Cancer Patients: An Evaluation of the Distress Thermometer

“…To meet the need of rapid screening of distress in cancer patients, the single-item Distress Thermometer (DT) was developed by Roth and colleagues for patients to rate distress from 0 ("no distress") to 10 ("extreme distress"). The DT cutoff point has changed slightly in different research [14][15][16][17] . Holland identified 4 as the best cutoff to identify clinical distress in a cancer patient, 14 and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for Distress Management recommends using a DT cutoff score of 4 followed by a Problem List (PL) to investigate any unmet psychological needs in the prior week.…”

Hostility in cancer patients as an underexplored facet of distress

“…Again, “caseness” of anger on the Anger‐ET was found in 15% of 149 breast cancer patients 31 and in 24% in a large sample of over 2,000 cancer patients, 32 in 18% of 158 long survivors of cancer by using the Anger/Hostility dimension of the Profile of Mood sates (POMS), 33 and in 28% out of 147 cancer patients by using the BSI‐HOS subscale 34 . This suggests that carefully exploring these dimensions among the several emotional reactions to cancer in structured program for early screening in cancer care is necessary and clinically useful 35,36 …”