Confirmatory validation of the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool—Patients: A brief patient‐reported outcome measure assessing psychological distress in malignant mesothelioma patients.
Saved in:
| Title: | Confirmatory validation of the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool—Patients: A brief patient‐reported outcome measure assessing psychological distress in malignant mesothelioma patients. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Bonafede, Michela (AUTHOR), Franzoi, Isabella Giulia (AUTHOR), Sauta, Maria Domenica (AUTHOR), Marinaccio, Alessandro (AUTHOR), Mensi, Carolina (AUTHOR), Rugarli, Sabrina (AUTHOR), Migliore, Enrica (AUTHOR), Cozzi, Ilaria (AUTHOR), Cavone, Domenica (AUTHOR), Vimercati, Luigi (AUTHOR), Grosso, Federica (AUTHOR), Bertolotti, Marinella (AUTHOR), Raimondi, Giulia (AUTHOR), Innamorati, Marco (AUTHOR), Granieri, Antonella (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Psycho-Oncology. Jul2024, Vol. 33 Issue 7, p1-9. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Psychological distress, Mesothelioma, Factor structure, Factor analysis, Bayesian analysis |
| Abstract: | Objective: Psychological suffering in patients with Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is different from the one experienced by patients with other cancers due to its occupational or environmental etiology and its peculiar symptomatology and prognosis (i.e., poor prognosis, reduced effectiveness of the therapies, poor quality of residual life, and advanced age at the time of diagnosis). Therefore, the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool‐Patients (MPDT‐P) has been developed to evaluate the specific profile of psychological suffering in this population. This paper describes the item selection, factor analysis, and psychometric evaluation of the revised MPDT‐P. Methods: The analyses of the current work aimed to confirm the factorial structure found in the first version of the MPDT‐P. In the case of nonfit, it aimed to find an alternative structure and causes of nonfit in the model. The search for the fit of the factorial model was conducted using a Bayesian approach. Results: The two‐factor model reported in the first version of the instrument did not fit the data. Confirmatory Bayesian analyses showed adequate fit for the three‐factor solution. Based on the content of the items, we labeled the factors as dysfunctional emotions, claims for justice, and anxieties about the future. Conclusions: Integrating the MPDT‐P into clinical practice could help clinicians gain insight into the specific suffering related to MM and investigate potential differences related to different occupational and environmental exposure contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Psycho-Oncology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: Psychological suffering in patients with Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is different from the one experienced by patients with other cancers due to its occupational or environmental etiology and its peculiar symptomatology and prognosis (i.e., poor prognosis, reduced effectiveness of the therapies, poor quality of residual life, and advanced age at the time of diagnosis). Therefore, the Mesothelioma Psychological Distress Tool‐Patients (MPDT‐P) has been developed to evaluate the specific profile of psychological suffering in this population. This paper describes the item selection, factor analysis, and psychometric evaluation of the revised MPDT‐P. Methods: The analyses of the current work aimed to confirm the factorial structure found in the first version of the MPDT‐P. In the case of nonfit, it aimed to find an alternative structure and causes of nonfit in the model. The search for the fit of the factorial model was conducted using a Bayesian approach. Results: The two‐factor model reported in the first version of the instrument did not fit the data. Confirmatory Bayesian analyses showed adequate fit for the three‐factor solution. Based on the content of the items, we labeled the factors as dysfunctional emotions, claims for justice, and anxieties about the future. Conclusions: Integrating the MPDT‐P into clinical practice could help clinicians gain insight into the specific suffering related to MM and investigate potential differences related to different occupational and environmental exposure contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10579249 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pon.6371 |
