Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use as Performance Metrics in Adolescent and Young Adult Psychosocial Cancer Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the Cancer Distress Scales for Adolescents and Young Adults (CDS-AYA)—Emotional and Impact scales—with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–revised (ESAS-r), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT) for use as a patient-reported outcome—performance measure (PRO-PM) for AYA cancer care. Methods: Data were collected as part of the field test study of CDS-AYA. Assessment criteria were based on a National Quality Forum report. Internal and test-retest (TRT) reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients, respectively. A content sort of items in each scale was performed to determine AYA-specific content. Two predefined hypotheses for gender and treatment status were assessed using t -test. Results: Four hundred twenty-one participants were included in the analyses. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.94, with only the two scales of CDS-AYA achieving >0.90. TRT reliability for HADS was considered excellent (>0.90), with remaining scales having moderate to good reliability (>0.70). Only the Impact scale of CDS-AYA had items that addressed the specific concerns of AYAs (e.g., romantic relationships). In all scales, active therapy patients had higher levels of distress than patients not receiving treatment ( p ≤ 0.05). Distress was greater for females than males for all scales, but nonsignificant for both the ESAS-r ( p = 0.07) and the HADS depression subscale ( p = 0.13). The proportion of AYAs screening positive for distress varied by instrument. Conclusion: The Impact scale of CDS-AYA met the most criteria for selection of a PROM for use in performance measurement for the AYA cancer population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".