Search

Objectives. This longitudinal study examined patterns of psychological distress in couples facing colorectal cancer within 6 months after surgery. In addition, correspondence in psychological distress was investigated between patients and their spouses, taking into account the gender of the patient. Method. The study had a longitudinal design, involving three assessment points; (T1) within 2 weeks after surgery, (T2) 3 months after baseline and (T3) 6 months after baseline. At T1, respondents were asked to indicate how they felt during the week prior to surgery. At T2 and T3, respondents reported their feelings during the preceding week. Psychological distress was measured using the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in 137 couples. Results. Concerning the week prior to surgery, females reported more distress being a patient, whereas males reported more distress being a spouse. In comparison with a reference group, females as well as males, regardless of their role, showed increased levels of psychological distress prior to surgery. At 3 and 6 months following surgery, increased levels of distress continued to exist in females, whereas males' distress returned to normal levels. Neither within female-patient couples, nor within male-patient couples, were associations between patients' and spouses' distress found. Conclusion. We demonstrated a considerable impact of the cancer diagnosis on both female and male patients and their spouses before and 3 months after surgery. Six months after surgery, females, in particular, appear to be vulnerable to distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractSome clinical trials perform repeated measurement over time and estimate clinically relevant change in an instrument’s score with global ratings of perceived change or so-called transition questions. The conceptual and methodological difficulties in estimating the magnitude of clinically relevant change over time in health-related functional status (HRFS) are discussed. This paper investigates the concordance between the amount of serially assessed change with effect size estimates (the researcher’s perspective) and global ratings of perceived change (the patient’s perspective). A total of 217 patients who were scheduled for diagnostic examination were included, and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, extended with MOS-20 items, was assessed before and after medical intervention (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting or pharmaco-therapy). Global questions were applied to assess perceived change over time for every item from domains of physical and emotional functioning and used as the external criterion of relevant change in the analysis of items. Global questions corresponding with overall change in these domains were used in the comparison of change in physical and emotional functioning scales. Two effect size indices were used: (i) ES (mean change/SDpooled) and (ii) ES (mean change/SDchange). A method is described to calculate a value indicating the extent of discordance between the researcher’s interpretation of magnitude of change and the external criterion (the patient’s perspective). Findings suggest that effect size (ES) (mean change/SDpooled) was in keeping with the magnitude of change indicated by patients’ judgements, or their category of subjective meaning, for all scales. Furthermore, in cases in which the magnitude of change estimated with the SRM (mean change/SDchange) was not confirmed empirically by the external criterion ratings, the discordance could be interpreted as a trivial discordance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]