Purpose: A Pan-Canadian Practice Guideline on Screening, Assessment, and Care of Psychosocial Distress (Depression, Anxiety) in Adults With Cancer was identified for adaptation. Methods: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for adapting clinical practice guidelines developed by other organizations. The guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor and content applicability. Results: On the basis of content review of the pan-Canadian guideline, the ASCO panel agreed that, in general, the recommendations were clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence, and presented options that will be acceptable to patients. However, for some topics addressed in the pan-Canadian guideline, the ASCO panel formulated a set of adapted recommendations based on local context and practice beliefs of the ad hoc panel members. It is recommended that all patients with cancer be evaluated for symptoms of depression and anxiety at periodic times across the trajectory of care. Assessment should be performed using validated, published measures and procedures. Depending on levels of symptoms and supplementary information, differing treatment pathways are recommended. Failure to identify and treat anxiety and depression increases the risk for poor quality of life and potential disease-related morbidity and mortality. This guideline adaptation is part of a larger survivorship guideline series. Conclusion: Although clinicians may not be able to prevent some of the chronic or late medical effects of cancer, they have a vital role in mitigating the negative emotional and behavioral sequelae. Recognizing and treating effectively those who manifest symptoms of anxiety or depression will reduce the human cost of cancer.

Research was conducted to develop valid and reliable scales to test the Health Belief Model (HBM). The dependent variable chosen for scale development was frequency of breast self-examination. Independent variables were constructs related to the HBM: susceptibility, seriousness, benefits, barriers, and health motivation. Analyses for construct validity and theory testing included factor analysis and multiple regression. Chronbach Alpha and Pearson r were used to compute reliabilities. Scales that were judged valid and reliable were susceptibility, seriousness, benefits, barriers, and health motivation.

BACKGROUND: Younger survivors (YS) of breast cancer often report more survivorship symptoms such as fatigue, depression, sexual difficulty, and cognitive problems than older survivors (OS). This study sought to determine the effect of breast cancer and age at diagnosis on quality of life (QoL) by comparing 3 groups: 1) YS diagnosed at age 45 years or before, 2) OS diagnosed between 55 and 70, and 3) for the YSs, age‐matched controls (AC) of women not diagnosed with breast cancer.METHODS: Using a large Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) database, 505 YS were recruited who were aged 45 years or younger when diagnosed and 622 OS diagnosed at 55 to 70 years of age. YS, OS, and AC were compared on physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and overall QoL variables.RESULTS: Compared to both AC and to OS, YS reported more depressive symptoms (P = .005) and fatigue (P < .001), poorer self‐reported attention function (P < .001), and poorer sexual function (P < .001) than either comparison group. However, YS also reported a greater sense of personal growth (P < .001) and perceived less social constraint (P < .001) from their partner than AC.CONCLUSIONS: YS reported worse functioning than AC relative to depression, fatigue, attention, sexual function, and spirituality. Perhaps even more important, YS fared worse than both AC and OS on body image, anxiety, sleep, marital satisfaction, and fear of recurrence, indicating that YS are at greater risk for long‐term QoL problems than survivors diagnosed at a later age.Cancer2014;120:2237–2246.©2014 American Cancer Society.

The purpose of this study was to describe the psychometric development of culturally sensitive scales to measure beliefs related to mammography and breast self-examination screening. Health Belief Model constructs of susceptibility, benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy were refined from previously existing instruments to reflect cultural sensitivity. A total of 329 African American women 45 to 64 years of age were included in the sample. Construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis and testing of theoretical hypotheses. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients ranged from .65 to .90, and test-retest reliability ranged from .40 to .68.

Fear of breast cancer has been inversely associated with participation in screening. However, investigators have generally used only one item or global scales to measure fear. This report describes development of a fear scale specific to breast cancer. Data from a large study involving mammography adherence were used to test the breast cancer fear scale for validity and reliability. Construct validity was verified through factor analysis and regression analysis predicting mammography. All items loaded on a single factor and theoretical relationships were verified by linear and logistic regression. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was .91.