To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the Distress Thermometer (DT) as a screening tool for emotional distress in oncological palliative care patients and to compare the DT with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r) and the gold standard to determine the most appropriate assessment method in palliative psychological care.

Data were collected from psychological screening tests (ESAS-r and DT), and clinical interviews (gold standard) were conducted by a clinical psychologist specialist in palliative oncology from January 2021 to January 2022 in an oncology palliative care service.

The sample consisted of 356 first-time patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer in palliative care. The most frequently reported oncological diagnoses were gastrointestinal tract (49.3%) and breast (18.3%). Most patients were female (n = 206; 57.9%), 60.4% were married/with a partner, 55.4% had between 6 and 9 years of schooling, and a median age of 57 (range, 46–65) years. The cutoff of the DT was 5, with a sensitivity of 75.88% and specificity of 54.3%. Emotional problems (sadness and nervousness) had a greater area under the curve (AUC) when measured using the DT than the ESAS-r; however, only in the case of the comparative sadness and discouragement was the difference between the AUC marginally significant.

The use of the DT as a screening tool in oncological palliative care is more effective in the evaluation of psychological needs than the ESAS-r. The DT, in addition to evaluation by an expert psychologist, allows for a more comprehensive identification of signs and symptoms to yield an accurate mental health diagnosis based on the International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision and/or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition.

To improve psychosocial care for oncology inpatients, we implemented screening for distress by means of distress thermometer (DT) at the Comprehensive Cancer Centre Zurich in 2011. Since then, several screening barriers have been reported regarding the application of the DT. This study aimed to evaluate the distress screening process between 2012 and 2016 to identify barriers preventing sustainability.

In this sequential explanatory mixed methods study, we synthesized the results of 2 quantitative retrospective descriptive studies and 1 qualitative focus group study. To compare and analyze the data, we used thematic triangulation.

Nurses screened 32% (N = 7034) of all newly admitted inpatients with the DT, and 47% of the screenings showed a distress level ≥5. Of these cases, 9.7% were referred to psycho-oncological services and 44.7% to social services. In 15.7% of these cases, nurses generated a psychosocial nursing diagnosis. In focus group interviews, nurses attributed the low screening rate to the following barriers: adaptation to patients’ individual needs, patient-related barriers and resistance, timing, communication challenges, established referral practice, and lack of integration in the nursing process.

To improve distress screening performance, the screening process should be tailored to patients’ needs and to nurses’ working conditions (e.g., timing, knowledge, and setting-specific factors). To gain more evidence on distress management as a basis for practical improvements, further evaluations of distress screening are required.

The objective of this study was to assess the psychosocial distress and associated factors in advanced cancer patients consulting at the outpatient Palliative Care Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico City.

A retrospective study was conducted using electronic records (June 2015 to December 2016).

A total of 646 patients with advanced cancer during their first visit to the outpatient palliative care unit at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico were evaluated using the Distress Thermometer (DT) and ECOG performance status scores.

Overall, 62% were women, with a median age of 57 years, and married (54.8%). The most frequent diagnosis was gastrointestinal cancer (28.6%), and 38.9% had a functional performance status of ECOG 2. The median DT score was 4.0 (IQR = 2–6), with 56% reporting DT scores ≥4. The three most frequent problems ≥4 were sadness (82.6%), feeling weak (81.2%), worry (79.6%), and <4 were feeling weak (57.7%), fatigue (55.6%), and financial security (52.1%). The variables associated with distress according to the multiple logistic regression analysis were problems with housing (OR = 2.661, 95% CI = 1.538–4.602), sadness (OR = 2.533, 95% CI = 1.615–3.973), transportation (OR = 1.732, 95% CI = 1.157–2.591), eating (OR = 1.626, 95% CI = 1.093–2.417), nervousness (OR = 1.547, 95% CI = 1.014–2.360), and sleep (OR = 1.469, 95% CI = 1.980–2.203).

The principal factors were related to distress levels, housing problems, transportation issues, and emotional problems such as sadness, nervousness, lower functionality, and younger age. Therefore, psychosocial support is of considerable relevance in palliative care. These findings will help clinicians understand the distress of patients with advanced cancer in palliative care in Latin American countries.

Our aim was to examine the accuracy of the German version of the Distress Thermometer (DT) compared with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with palliative care needs living at home.

Ours was a 15-month cross-sectional study beginning in September of 2013 in Germany with consecutive patients cared for by a palliative home care service. The survey was implemented during the initial visit by a home care team. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years of age, mentally or physically unable to complete the assessment questionnaires as judged by their healthcare worker, or unable to understand the German language. During the first encounter, the DT and HADS were applied, and sociodemographic and medical data were collected.

A total of 89 persons completed both the HADS and DT questionnaires (response rate = 59.7%; mean age = 67 years; female = 55.1%; married = 65.2%; living home with relatives = 73.0%; oncological condition = 92.1%; Karnofsky Performance Scale [KPS] score: 0–40 = 30.3%, 50–70 = 57.3%, >80 = 6.7%). The mean DT score was 6.3 (±2.3), with 84.3% of participants scoring above the DT cutoff (≥4). The mean HADStotal score was 17.9 (±7.8), where 64% of participants had a total HADS score (HADStotal) ≥15, 51.7% reported anxiety (HADSanxiety ≥ 8), and 73% reported depression (HADSdepression ≥ 8). Using the HADS as a gold standard, a DT cutoff score ≥5 was optimal for identifying severe distress in patients with palliative care needs, with a sensitivity of 93.0%, a specificity of 34.4%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 73.3%, and likelihood ratios LR+ = 1.42 (<3) and –LR = 0.203 (<0.3).

The DT performed satisfactorily compared to the HADS in screening for distress in our study and can be employed as an instrument for identification of patients with distress. Consequent to the high prevalence of distress, we recommend its routine use for screening distressed persons at home with palliative care needs in order to offer adequate support.

The aims of the present study were (1) to describe the prevalence of psychosocial distress in palliative care patients living at home and the related factors, and (2) to test implementation of the Distress Thermometer (DT) within a home-based palliative care service.

Ours was a 15-month prospective study beginning in September of 2013 in western Germany with consecutive patients cared for by a home care palliative care service. The research was implemented during the first visit by the home care team. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years of age, mentally or physically unable to complete the assessment questionnaires as judged by their healthcare worker, or unable to understand the German language. During the first encounter, the Distress Thermometer (DT), a Problem List (PL), and a structured questionnaire for evaluation were applied and sociodemographic and medical data collected.

A total of 103 patients (response rate = 70%; mean age = 67; female = 54%; married = 67%; oncological condition = 91%; Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] score 0–40 = 34%, 50–70 = 60%, >80 = 6%) were included. The incidence of distress (DT score ≥4) was 89.3% (mean = 6.3 ± 2.5). No statistical association was found between level of distress and sociodemographic or medical factors. The five most reported problems were “fatigue” (90%), “getting around” (84%), “eating” (63%), “bathing/dressing” (60%), and “sleep” (57%). The number of problems reported correlated with level of distress (ρ = 0.34). The DT was comprehensible, and 80% considered its completion as unremarkable, while 14% found it “relieving.”

A significant proportion of patients treated at home reported symptoms of distress. The most oft-mentioned problems were physical and emotional in nature. The findings of our study highlight the importance of creating new concepts and structures in order to address the psychosocial needs of patients in home care with palliative needs.

Distress screening guidelines call for rapid screening for emotional distress at the time of cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the distress thermometer's (DT) ability to screen in patients in treatment for advanced cancer who may be depressed.

Using cross-sectional data collected from patients within 30 days of diagnosis with advanced cancer, this study used ROC analysis to determine the optimal-cutoff point of the distress thermometer (DT) for screening for depression as measured by the physician health questionnaire (PHQ)-9; inter-test reliability analysis to compare the DT with the PHQ-2 for screening in possible cases of depression, and multivariate analysis to examine associations among the DT emotional problem list (EPL) items with cases of depression.

The average age of the 123 patients in the study was 59.9 (12.9) years. Seventy (56.9%) were female. All had Stage 3 or 4 cancers (40% gastrointestinal, 19% gynecologic, 20% head and neck, 21% lung). The mean DT score was 4 (2.7)/10; and 56 (43%) were depressed as measured by the PHQ-9 ≥5. The optimal DT cut-off score to screen in possible cases of depression was ≥2/10, with a sensitivity of .96, compared to a sensitivity of .32 of the PHQ-2 ≥2. Correlation coefficients for the DT ≥2 and the PHQ-2 with the PHQ-9 ≥5 were 0.4 and −0.2, respectively. EPL items associated with cases of depression were Depression (OR = 0.15, 0.02–0.85) and Sadness (OR = 0.21, 0.06–0.72).

The optimal DT threshold for identifying possible cases of depression at the time of diagnosis is ≥2; this threshold is more sensitive than the PHQ-2 ≥2. EPL items may be used with the DT score to triage patients for evaluation.