MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7128708118 · doi:10.26180/4625125.v1

Refinement and Revalidation of the Demoralization Scale: The DS-II

2017· dissertation· W7128708118 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sophie Anne Robinson

Notice bibliographique

RevueMonash University · 2017
Typedissertation
Langue
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCancer survivorship and care
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCoping (psychology)Empirical researchPsycINFOQuality of life (healthcare)RevalidationScale (ratio)PsychometricsMental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Demoralization is a condition of lowered morale and maladaptive coping that involves symptoms of hopelessness, helplessness, meaninglessness and purposelessness. When this mental state becomes severe, it can be associated with a desire for hastened death. The original Demoralization Scale (DS) was initially validated in 2004 as a tool to measure demoralization in advanced cancer patients. However, subsequent studies suggested the need for psychometric improvement. The current research aimed to address three aims and comprised two studies. Study 1 addressed the first aim which was to review the empirical research on the Demoralization Syndrome. Study 2 was a quantitative longitudinal study that addressed the second and third aims. The second aim was to refine and revalidate the Demoralization Scale. The third was to explore the mediating role of demoralization, as well as other psychological factors, in the relationship between global quality of life and desire for hastened death. In Study 1, the PRISMA guidelines informed a comprehensive literature review of 25 studies (4,545 participants) on the Demoralization Syndrome in patients with progressive disease, including cancer. Data on the correlation between demoralization and sociodemographic, medical, and other psychological factors were organized according to the strength of evidence. Recent empirical evidence from the past decade was synthesized to provide information on the prevalence rate of demoralization; factors related to demoralization; and the psychometric properties of demoralization measures. Prevalence rates for demoralization ranged from 13-18% in patients with progressive disease. Depressive symptoms, anxiety, single status, unemployment, and poorly controlled physical symptoms were consistently related to demoralization. The original Demoralization Scale (DS) demonstrated adequate psychometric properties across five studies, but inconsistent findings for the factor structure were reported and test-retest reliability was not examined. In Study 2, palliative care patients (N = 211) with advanced cancer (n = 189) or other progressive diseases (neurological, cardiorespiratory and renal; n = 22) completed a battery of questionnaires, including a revised version of the original 24-item DS and measures of symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale), quality of life (McGill Quality of Life Scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), and attitudes toward end-of-life (Schedule of Attitudes toward Hastened Death). Exploratory factor analysis and Rasch modeling were employed to evaluate, modify, and revalidate the scale. These analyzes provided information about dimensionality, appropriateness of response format, item fit, item bias, and item difficulty. Test-retest reliability was investigated for 58 symptomatically stable patients approximately five days after baseline measures were taken. Convergent validity was examined with Spearman’s rho correlations and discriminant validity was explored with Mann-Whitney U Tests, with effect sizes used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Discriminant validity with major depression was assessed with cross-tabulation frequencies with a chi square analysis. Multiple mediation with the bootstrapping sampling procedure was undertaken to explore the mediating role of demoralization, depression, loss of perceived control, and self-worth in the relationship between global quality of life and desire for hastened death. The results of the exploratory factor analysis supported a 22-item, 2-component model (Meaning and Purpose; and Distress and Coping Ability) of demoralization. Separate Rasch modeling of each component resulted in changing the response option categories from a 5-point to a 3-point Likert scale. Three items were removed from each subscale and the result was two 8-item subscales that met Rasch model expectations. The 16 items were appropriate to sum as a total score. The DS-II demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (Meaning and Purpose: α = 0.84; Distress and Coping Ability: α = 0.82; Total: α = 0.89) and test-retest reliability (Meaning and Purpose: intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.68; Distress and Coping Ability: ICC = 0.82; Total ICC = .80). Convergent validity was established for the DS-II with measures of psychological distress, quality of life, and attitudes toward end-of-life. Discriminant validity was found, as firstly, the DS-II differentiated patients with different functional performance levels and high versus low symptoms, with two points on the DS-II considered clinically meaningful. Furthermore, comorbidity with depression was not found at moderate levels of demoralization. The results of the multiple mediation analysis were that an increased level of depressive symptoms and lower levels of meaning and purpose, control, and self-worth mediated the inverse relationship between global quality of life and desire for hastened death. Overall, the Demoralization Syndrome can be a common presentation in the palliative care setting and one which mediates the relationship between poor quality of life and the desire for hastened death. The DS-II is a psychometrically sound and appropriate measure of demoralization for patients with advanced progressive disease. Given the revalidation and simplification, the DS-II is an improved and more practical measure of demoralization for use in research and clinical settings than the original DS instrument. It will likely be a useful outcome measure for meaning-centered therapies, particularly appropriate in an era where such therapies are being trialed and in patient populations at risk of demoralization.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,033
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,176

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0330,036
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMonash UniversityMême sujetCancer survivorship and careTravaux en français237 207