Schultz Michael, Meged-Book Tehilah, Mashiach Tanya, Bar-Sela Gil
Division of Oncology, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Statistical Department, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Jul;54(1):66-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.03.018. Epub 2017 May 19.
Spiritual distress is present in approximately 25% of oncology patients.
We examined the extent to which this measure is identical to a variety of other measures, such as spiritual well-being, spiritual injury, spiritual pain, and general distress.
Structured interview of oncology outpatients over 12 months, approached nonselectively. The presence or absence of spiritual distress was compared against spiritual pain and two spiritual well-being tools: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being 12-Item Scale (FACIT-Sp-12) and the Spiritual Injury Scale (SIS). We also examined whether a general distress visual analogue scale sufficed to identify spiritual distress. Other questions concerned demographic and clinical data.
Of 416 patients approached, 202 completed the interview, of whom 23% reported spiritual distress. All measures showed significant correlation (receiver operating characteristic, area under the curve: SIS 0.79; distress thermometer [DT] 0.68; FACIT-Sp-12 0.67), yet none were identical with spiritual distress (sensitivity/specificity: SIS 64%/79%; spiritual pain 72%/76%; DT 41%/76%; FACIT-Sp-12 57%/72%). Of the FACIT-Sp-12 subscales, only peace correlated with spiritual distress. A significant predictor of spiritual distress was patients' self-evaluation of grave clinical condition (odds ratio 3.3; 95% CI 1.1-9.5). Multivariable analysis of individual measure items suggests an alternative three-parameter model for spiritual distress: not feeling peaceful, feeling unable to accept that this is happening, and perceived severity of one's illness.
The DT is not sufficient to identify spiritual distress. The peace subscale of FACIT-Sp-12 is a better match than the measure as a whole. The SIS is the best match for spiritual distress, although an imperfect one.
约25%的肿瘤患者存在精神困扰。
我们研究了该指标与多种其他指标,如精神健康、精神损伤、精神痛苦和一般困扰,在多大程度上相同。
对肿瘤门诊患者进行为期12个月的非选择性结构化访谈。将精神困扰的有无与精神痛苦和两种精神健康工具进行比较:慢性病治疗功能评估-精神健康12项量表(FACIT-Sp-12)和精神损伤量表(SIS)。我们还研究了一般困扰视觉模拟量表是否足以识别精神困扰。其他问题涉及人口统计学和临床数据。
在接触的416名患者中,202名完成了访谈,其中23%报告有精神困扰。所有指标均显示出显著相关性(受试者工作特征曲线下面积:SIS为0.79;困扰温度计[DT]为0.68;FACIT-Sp-12为0.67),但没有一个与精神困扰完全相同(敏感性/特异性:SIS为64%/79%;精神痛苦为72%/76%;DT为41%/76%;FACIT-Sp-12为57%/72%)。在FACIT-Sp-12子量表中,只有平和与精神困扰相关。精神困扰的一个显著预测因素是患者对严重临床状况的自我评估(优势比3.3;95%置信区间1.1-9.5)。对各个测量项目的多变量分析表明,精神困扰存在另一种三参数模型:感觉不平静、感觉无法接受事情正在发生以及对自身疾病严重程度的感知。
DT不足以识别精神困扰。FACIT-Sp-12的平和子量表比整个量表更匹配。SIS与精神困扰最匹配,尽管并不完美。