Diagnosing adjustment disorder in patients with cancer: evaluation of the adherence, interrater agreement, and content of a guideline-based interview

L. M. Wijnhoven, Linda van Zutphen, J. Custers, F. E. van Beek, K. Holtmaat, F. Jansen, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, L. Kwakkenbos, Judith B Prins
{"title":"Diagnosing adjustment disorder in patients with cancer: evaluation of the adherence, interrater agreement, and content of a guideline-based interview","authors":"L. M. Wijnhoven, Linda van Zutphen, J. Custers, F. E. van Beek, K. Holtmaat, F. Jansen, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, L. Kwakkenbos, Judith B Prins","doi":"10.1097/or9.0000000000000127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The aim of this study was to evaluate the adherence, interrater agreement, and content of a guideline-based semistructured interview for adjustment disorder (AD) in patients with cancer.\n \n \n \n In total, 120 AD interviews with patients with cancer were performed by 9 trained psychologists. The interview contained topics related to stressors, resilience, and symptoms and complaints. Audiotaped interviews of 72 patients were available. Adherence to the interview manual was scored by two researchers independently, and the average adherence was calculated per topic. Interrater agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. The content of the interviews was evaluated using thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews of patients with an AD diagnosis.\n \n \n \n In the interviews, 97% of the topics were covered at least briefly and 78% of all topics were addressed at least adequately. Interviewers asked questions regarding stressors and symptoms and complaints more thoroughly compared with resilience. The interrater agreement regarding the AD diagnosis was moderate (Kappa 0.55). The content analysis showed that stressors and resilience can be additionally specified into physical, psychological, spiritual, and social themes, which are relevant to explore in the context of an AD diagnosis after cancer.\n \n \n \n The guideline-based interview for AD identifies problems and protective factors with adequate adherence and moderate agreement. A balanced investigation of stressors, resilience, and symptoms is important for optimal clinical decision-making regarding AD in the context of cancer.\n","PeriodicalId":73915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice","volume":"31 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/or9.0000000000000127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the adherence, interrater agreement, and content of a guideline-based semistructured interview for adjustment disorder (AD) in patients with cancer. In total, 120 AD interviews with patients with cancer were performed by 9 trained psychologists. The interview contained topics related to stressors, resilience, and symptoms and complaints. Audiotaped interviews of 72 patients were available. Adherence to the interview manual was scored by two researchers independently, and the average adherence was calculated per topic. Interrater agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. The content of the interviews was evaluated using thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews of patients with an AD diagnosis. In the interviews, 97% of the topics were covered at least briefly and 78% of all topics were addressed at least adequately. Interviewers asked questions regarding stressors and symptoms and complaints more thoroughly compared with resilience. The interrater agreement regarding the AD diagnosis was moderate (Kappa 0.55). The content analysis showed that stressors and resilience can be additionally specified into physical, psychological, spiritual, and social themes, which are relevant to explore in the context of an AD diagnosis after cancer. The guideline-based interview for AD identifies problems and protective factors with adequate adherence and moderate agreement. A balanced investigation of stressors, resilience, and symptoms is important for optimal clinical decision-making regarding AD in the context of cancer.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诊断癌症患者的适应障碍:评估以指南为基础的访谈的依从性、交互一致性和内容
本研究旨在评估基于指南的半结构化访谈对癌症患者适应障碍(AD)的依从性、交互一致性和内容。 9 名经过培训的心理学家共对癌症患者进行了 120 次适应障碍访谈。访谈内容包括压力源、适应力、症状和主诉。有 72 名患者的访谈录音可供使用。由两名研究人员独立对访谈手册的遵守情况进行评分,并计算每个主题的平均遵守情况。研究人员之间的一致性采用科恩卡帕(Cohen's Kappa)进行计算。访谈内容是通过对诊断为注意力缺失症的患者的访谈记录进行主题分析来评估的。 在访谈中,97% 的主题至少得到了简短的阐述,78% 的主题至少得到了充分的阐述。与应变能力相比,访谈者对压力源、症状和主诉的提问更为详尽。关于注意力缺失症的诊断,询问者之间的一致性为中等(Kappa 0.55)。内容分析显示,压力源和抗压能力可进一步细分为生理、心理、精神和社会主题,这些主题与癌症后的注意力缺失症诊断相关。 以指南为基础的注意力缺失症访谈能够识别问题和保护因素,并且具有充分的依从性和适度的一致性。对压力源、恢复力和症状进行均衡的调查,对于在癌症背景下做出有关注意力缺失症的最佳临床决策非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the contribution of IPOS to psycho-oncology Evaluation of frailty, cognitive function, and age as prognostic factors for survival in patients with IDH1wild-type high-grade glioma Survivors of child and adolescent cancer experiences of bullying at school or work: self-report and parent proxy report Family cancer caregiver use of and benefit from an internet-delivered insomnia intervention: results from a single-group feasibility trial The role of peer support and patient navigation for empowerment in breast cancer survivors: implications for community cancer control
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1