BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess the face, content, and construct validity and the internal reliability of a tool for assessing the generic needs of patients with cancer (the Supportive Care Needs Survey). METHODS A total of 1492 consecutive patients attending the surgical, radiation, or medical oncology departments of 9 cancer treatment centers in New South Wales, Australia, were asked to participate. Of the 1370 eligible patients, 1354 (99%) consented to participate and 888 (65%) completed the survey. Eligible consenting patients were given a Supportive Care Needs Survey to complete at home and return by mail within 7 days. RESULTS In the assessment of construct validity, the principal components method of factor analysis identified 5 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which together accounted for 64% of the total variance (patients' needs in the domains of psychologic, health system and information, physical and daily living, patient care and support, and sexuality). Face and content validity were found to be high following pilot tests and tests of reading ease. Internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) of all 5 factor‐based scales were found to be substantial, ranging from 0.87 to 0.97. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that the Supportive Care Needs Survey provides a reliable and valid index of the global needs of oncology patients. The standardized and widespread application of this instrument is recommended following further refinement and evaluation. [See related article on pages 226−37, this issue.] Cancer 2000;88:217–25. © 2000 American Cancer Society.

An understanding of the nature and magnitude of the impact of cancer is critical to planning how best to deliver supportive care to the growing population of cancer survivors whose need for care may span many years. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of and factors associated with moderate to high level unmet supportive care needs among adult cancer survivors six months after diagnosis.

Background General practice is a common setting for the provision of weight-management advice, as well as the treatment of depression. While there is some evidence of a reciprocal relationship between obesity and depression, there are limited data about the rates of depression among general practice patients who are underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese. Aim To explore the prevalence of depression among underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese general practice patients. Design and setting A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 12 Australian general practices. Method Patients aged ≥18 years and older who were presenting for general practice care were eligible to participate. Consenting patients completed a touchscreen computer survey assessing self-reported weight and height. Depression was assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), with a score of ≥10 used to indicate possible depression. Results Data were obtained from 3361 participants. The prevalence of depression was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.86 to 39.28) among underweight participants, 11% (95% CI = 8.5 to 14.0) among normal weight participants, 12% (95% CI = 0.9 to 15.2) among overweight participants, and 23% (95% CI = 17.8 to 29.0) among obese participants. The prevalence of depression was higher for women than for men across all weight categories except underweight. Conclusion Weight and depression demonstrated a U-shaped relationship, with higher prevalence of depression observed among underweight and obese general practice patients. These conditions may act as red flags for opportunistic screening of depression in the general practice setting.