Next Article in Journal
Economic Stressors, COVID-19 Attitudes, Worry, and Behaviors among U.S. Working Adults: A Mixture Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Late Menarche, Not Reproductive Period, Is Associated with Poor Cognitive Function in Postmenopausal Women in Taiwan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 5
10.3390/ijerph18052346
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Improved Stress-Scale Specifically Designed to Measure Stress of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer

by
Tso-Ying Lee
1,2,
Shih-Chun Hsing
3,4 and
Chin-Ching Li
5,*
1
Department of Nursing, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan
2
School of Nursing, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei 112303, Taiwan
3
Center for Healthcare Quality Management, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan
4
Department of Health Care Management, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei 112303, Taiwan
5
Department of Nursing, Mackay Medical College, New Taipei City 25245, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(5), 2346; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052346
Submission received: 18 January 2021 / Revised: 20 February 2021 / Accepted: 23 February 2021 / Published: 27 February 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Most breast cancer patients are middle-aged women actively involved in establishing a family, developing a career, or raising children. With the exception of the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale (NDBCSS), few stress scales have been designed for women with breast cancer. This study checked the dimensionality of the NDBCSS by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the results showed a poor fit, indicating an urgent need for improvement. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the varimax rotation method was performed to improve the model, the revised NDBCSS (NDBCSS-R), which showed a good Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and internal consistency reliability. The NDBCSS-R showed improved indices compared with NDBCSS, including: chi-square fit statistics/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normed fix index (NFI), relative fit index (RFI), incremental fix index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fix index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), root mean square residual (RMR), parsimonious goodness-fit-index (PGFI), and parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI). In conclusion, the improved NDBCSS-R can provide health professionals with an early understanding of the stress levels of women with breast cancer so that they can provide immediate medical intervention to prevent vicious cycles in a timely manner.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the prevalence and incidence of breast cancer has continued to rise. Breast cancer is currently the most common cause of cancer death in eleven regions of the world [1,2]. Among the top ten cancers, the incidence and mortality of breast cancer patients worldwide is 24.2% and 15.0%, respectively [2,3]. Moreover, the incidence of breast cancer varies widely among countries. According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), the median age of newly diagnosed breast cancer in black women and white women is about 63 years [4]. However, in Asia, women diagnosed with breast cancer are relatively young (Taiwan, 45–54 years; Korea, 40–49 years; India, 50–54 years) [5,6,7]. Many studies have found that early detection of breast cancer can increase cure rates and five-year survival rates by up to 90%. Many countries have developed medical policies to offer early breast cancer screening services to high-risk women [8]. For example, in Taiwan and South Korea, patients aged 45–69, and patients aged 40–44 with a family history of breast cancer, are given a mammographic x-ray (MMx) subsidy every two years [5,6].
Although the development of cancer research has made great progress and the cure rate of cancer patients has improved [9], the health problems of patients with breast cancer still deeply affect the entire social structure of a patient. Women with breast cancer often must deal with changes in their quality of life and problems caused by their disease symptoms. Significantly, most patients with breast cancer are middle-aged women who are at the life stage when they are establishing a family, developing a career, raising children or a combination of these activities.
Negative changes in body image are often part of the side effects of treatment. This is especially significant among women whose body image centers around their femininity. Previous studies have found that following breast surgery, women have depression and anxiety associated with low levels of self-esteem and psychological coping strategies [10,11]. In addition, several studies have found that breast cancer patients experience high levels of anxiety at the beginning of treatment, with the anxiety level relieved temporarily, but then quickly increasing [12,13]. Current theory generally holds that a patient’s first encounter with cancer may cause increased anxiety. Subsequently, although patients try to adapt to their cancer and attempt to reduce their anxiety level, therapy (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and prolonged treatment) may further greatly increase depression and anxiety levels due to a decline in quality of life. As a result, breast cancer can seriously affect a woman’s identity, body image, self-esteem and cause very significant changes to socioeconomic and interpersonal relationships, eventually leading to psychological stress in these breast cancer patients [3,14,15,16,17]. The resulting long-term stress may lead to physical problems, such as hypertension, as well as mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression [18,19,20]. Additionally, some studies have demonstrated that breast cancer patients under the age of 50 suffer a greater psychological burden than older patients, and that the psychological burden does not improve over time [21,22].
Of great concern is the vicious cycle created, that is, psychological problems after treatment gradually affect the patient’s family and work conditions, and then expand, in turn resulting in additional physical and mental burdens [23,24]. We submit that if a patient’s stress index and related information can be identified early in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, a more informed intervention by health professionals might help to reduce the patient’s stress and prevent this vicious cycle in a timely manner.
A stress scale is a tool widely used by health professionals to detect the stress levels of patients. In the past, perceived stress scales were developed to detect different aspects of stress and target different diseases. Universal stress scales have often been used to measure cancer-related stress, such as the following: the Davidson Trauma scale (DTS); Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM); Impact of Event scale (IES); Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D); and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Among them, PSS is the most widely used to examine or evaluate stress caused by events, physical and mental diseases, and the effectiveness of subsequent stress management programs [25,26,27]. These universal stress scales are either psychiatric or unspecific instruments. The application of such instruments to cancer patients does not fully address the subjective aspect of the health of cancer patients. For example, most of the questions asked of cancer patients are items related to psychiatric symptoms, but are not related to the specific needs and distress of the disease. If the psychological findings are inconsistent with those of psychiatric disorder, but the patient still shows high subjective distress and needs psychosocial support, this will result in a distorted picture [28]. For example, among women who have just started a family or are raising children, the reality of a breast cancer diagnosis may make these women worry about the impact on the family. Moreover, the results provided by disease-specific questionnaires can more adequately reflect a patient’s experience because they can more clearly pinpoint the further support required as a consequence of therapeutic (or psycho-oncological) treatments [29]. These factors strongly support the development of a stress scale for women-specific diseases, such as breast cancer.
Chinese people tend to communicate their emotional problems by developing psychosomatic symptoms, rather than openly admitting their feelings [30,31]. As with other cancers, when a patient first faces a diagnosis of breast cancer, the patient is under tremendous pressure. A study by Chuang and Chin (2002) showed that women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face three major issues: insufficient information acquisition, loss of self-control, and an increased sense of uncertainty [32]. Insufficient information acquisition involves patients feeling that they cannot fully obtain sufficient information about breast cancer, including medical treatment and medical care. Insufficient self-control refers to things that cannot be carried out in accordance with the predetermined plan, resulting in the inability to plan the next step (e.g., threat of survival). Increased uncertainty refers to the vagueness of events related to the patient’s breast cancer. For example, will the events that happen to other breast cancer women, such as divorce, happen to me? The fear that comes from experiencing sudden and unexpected cancer, the heavy financial and emotional burden, and indirect ways of expressing emotion, may cause additional serious psychological trauma. Therefore, it would be advantageous to patients, their families and clinical staff to measure and utilize the stress index, and related information, of patients with breast cancer in order to facilitate timely intervention.
The theoretical definitions used in our initial questionnaire were developed from the content of qualitative interviews with 20 women in Taiwan, all with newly diagnosed breast cancer, based upon their interviews with three medical experts. Since two of the interviewing medical experts had been diagnosed with breast cancer previously, they were viewed as better able to establish a relationship with the patients and to more fully understand their reactions to the presence of stressors, emotional and physiological reactions, and changes in their living environment. The initial stress questionnaire was developed based on both the interview data and relevant literature. Subsequently, 125 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer were further tested using this stress questionnaire. The PSS and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were used to determine the degree of stress and stress-related symptoms of anxiety and depression, which now constitutes the prototype of the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale (NDBCSS) for breast cancer patients [33]. Although the scale has been proven to have acceptable reliability and validity in China [34] and Greece [35], we found that the scale still has poor model fit. In this study, we recruited a group of 195 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer and used factor analysis to improve the structure of the NDBCSS for breast cancer patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Original NDBCSS

The original NDBCSS scale, with four-factor structure and 17 items, was established in 2013 to measure the stress perceptions of newly diagnosed breast cancer women, with a Cronbach’s α = 0.84. The scale appears to have sufficient psychometric properties to be used as a designated measure of perceived stress in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. The NDBCSS scale consisted of four main factors, each with 4 to 5 items. These factors include: unpredictable perceptions (5 items); uncontrollable perceptions (4 items); heavy psychological load perceptions (4 items); and facing challenge perceptions (4 items). The scale is scored as follows: strongly agree = 4; agree = 3; somehow agree = 2; disagree =1. A higher score indicates greater stress.

2.2. Participants

A total of 195 participants were recruited from a breast surgery clinic at the Medical Center of Tri-Service General Hospital in Taiwan, and all participants were citizens of Taiwan. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Inclusion criteria for participation were patients with breast cancer newly diagnosed by a physician, who had agreed to surgery and to participate in this study, and had signed informed consent. The time from diagnosis to completion of the questionnaire did not exceed two weeks. The day before the patient underwent breast cancer surgery, the researchers explained the study protocol and asked the patient to complete the NDBCSS and to provide personal demographic information. In addition, participants were informed that the purpose of this study was to improve a tool for measuring the stress of the breast cancer patients, that the participant may withdraw from the study at any time, and that all data collected from patients will be kept confidential.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

In order to improve the original NDBCSS scale, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the original NDBCSS using a dataset from 195 newly recruited patients. A series of indices was used to evaluate whether the hypothesized hierarchical model exactly fits the data, including the chi-square fit statistics/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normed fix index (NFI), relative fit index (RFI), incremental fix index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fix index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), root mean square residual (RMR), parsimonious goodness-fit-index (PGFI), and parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI). All analyses were performed with the statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) software. Good indicators were considered to be: CMIN/DF between 2–3; GFI > 0.85; AGFI > 0.80; NFI > 0.80; RFI > 0.80; IFI > 0.90; TLI > 0.90; CFI > 0.90; RMSEA < 0.08; RMR < 0.05; PGFI > 0.50; and PNFI > 0.50.
Due to the poor fit of the original model, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was further performed to examine the dimensionality of the original 17-item NDBCSS. First, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) were performed to evaluate the suitability of data that were to be used for Factor Analysis. Second, scree plot was created to further identify the optimal number of factor solution. Subsequently, the principal components method with varimax rotation was used for factor extraction, and CFA was performed to examine how well the newly included NDBCSS items represent the constructs extracted by EFA. In addition, a second-order factor was created to represent the general concept of stress, which may be explained by factors extracted from EFA. All indices of the new model were determined and compared with that of the original model. Finally, correlation analysis was used to explore the correlation between different factor structures.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical and Demographic Characteristics

In order to evaluate whether or not the original NDBCSS is suitable for breast cancer patients today, 195 patients with breast cancer were recruited for the study. Table 1 shows the clinical and demographic characteristics of all participants. The mean age at diagnosis was 52.2 years, ranging from 28 to 89 years. Of the 195 subjects, 49 participants (25.13%) were aged < 45 years, 80 (41%) aged 45–54 years, 45 (23.1%) aged 55–64 years, and 18 (9.2%) aged ≥ 65 years. Most participants were married (80%), and 43.1% of the participants had a college degree or above. Nearly half of the participants (54.17%) were still in employment. The pathology reports showed that most participants were diagnosed in Stage 0–2 with 58 (33.72%) participants in Stage 0, 63 (36.63) in Stage 1, and 45 (26.16%) in Stage 2. Six patients (3.49%) were diagnosed in Stages 3–4. Most of the participants (80.42%) had no family history of breast cancer, and 38.1% had received regular mammography. All participants underwent a Self-Awareness of Health examination, and the results showed that 74.6% of participants worried about their health problems.

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Original Four-Factor Structure of the NDBCSS

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the dimensionality of the original NDBCSS, a four-factor model with 17 items, and to determine whether the original model adequately fit the newly collected data. After CFA analysis of 195 newly recruited breast cancer patients, the results showed a poor fit for the original model. All the important indices did not meet the standard fitting criteria of model fitness, including: CMIN/DF = 3.30; goodness of fit index (GFI = 0.80); the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI = 0.73); normed fit index (NFI = 0.72); relative fit index (RFI = 0.66); incremental fit index (IFI = 0.79); Tucker–Lewis index (TLI = 0.74); comparative fit index (CFI = 0.78); the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.11); root mean square residual (RMR = 0.06); parsimonious goodness-fit-index (PGFI = 0.59); and the parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI = 0.60). All indices suggested that the original model did not adequately fit the data from the breast cancer patients, and this model needed to be revised and improved.

3.3. Model Improvement of the NDBCSS by Exploratory Factor Analyses

In order to improve the original NDBCSS, an exploratory factor analysis (EFAs) was conducted. The result of scree plot indicated that the four-factor solution was the best solution (Figure 1). The curve in scree plot levelled off after the first four components, with eigenvalues of 4.83, 2.69, 1.52 and 0.99, respectively. We further examined the three- and five-factor solutions. The five-factor solution was discarded because factor 1 and 2 included most of the items, resulting in only one item being in factor 5. The three-factor solution was also rejected because two items were cross-loaded in different factors. In addition, the three-factor solution did not meet the standard fitting criteria of model fitness. Thus, the four-factor solution was supported as the best model and was selected for following analysis. After examining the relationship between each item, item 5 (illness makes me worry about my job) was dropped because of low commonalities with other items. Finally, a new Revised NDBCSS (NDBCSS-R) was generated using a four-factor model containing a total of 16 rearranged items, each factor containing 3–5 items. Table 2 showed the new NDBCSS-R has good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.84). Subsequently, the NDBCSS-R underwent EFA analysis using the varimax rotation method and the results of factor matrix of NDBCSS-R after varimax rotation is shown in Table 3. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.83, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.001). These indicated that these variables were suitable for subsequent factor analysis.

3.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the New NDBCSS-R

CFA was then further used to examine whether or not the new NDBCSS-R had good model fit. As shown in Table 4, the new NDBCSS-R has a good fit index after model modification: CMIN/DF = 2.48; GFI = 0.92; AGFI = 0.81; NFI = 0.8; RFI = 0.83; IFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.90; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.08; RMR = 0.04; PGFI = 0.63, and; PNFI = 0.65. Although the value of RMSEA was not less than 0.08, the value 0.084 was very close and was accepted. It is worth noting that all other important indices meet the standard fitting criteria of model fitness [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46], indicating that the revised model has been greatly improved compared to the original model. The standardized factor loadings in CFA are displayed in Figure 2. The specified structural model contains four factors, including “Negative perception”, “Threat”, “Unpredictable”, and “Facing Challenge”. The factor loadings of these subscales ranged from 0.64 to 0.77 for the “Negative perception” subscale, 0.51 to 0.75 for the “Threat” subscale 0.62 to 0.69 for the “Unpredictable” subscale, and 0.46 to 0.70 for the “Facing challenge” subscale.
The prototype NDBCSS included “Unpredictable”, “Uncontrollable”, “Heavy psychological load”, and “Facing challenge”. In the revised NDBCSS-R, Factor 1 is renamed “Negative perception” (was “unpredictable”) and consists of S01 (I often cry), S02 (Illness makes me worry about my family), and S06 (I cannot make a decision for my breast cancer treatment). Factor 2 is renamed “Threat” (was “uncontrollable”) and consists of item S03 (Loss of the breast will affect my life), S09 (I am worried that my economic conditions cannot deal with the required medical expenses), S10 (I am very worried about the uncertainty of the progression of illness), and S12 (Loss of the breast will affect my attractiveness to my partner). Factor 3 is still “Unpredictable”, but the items were reorganized to include item S04 (I have fear, anxiety and depression), S07 (I think the road of anti-cancer is lonely, hard and there is a lack of support) S8 (I am worried that my arm cannot lift a heavy weight and it will affect my life and work), S11 (I am worried about the side effects caused by chemotherapy: such as physical discomfort, change of appearance, or future birth plans, etc.), and S13 (Insufficient breast cancer information scares me). The composition of factor 4 was not changed, and is still called “Facing challenge”, including S15 (I can accept the diagnosis of breast cancer), S16 (I can able to make proper arrangements and deal with things affected by illness), and S17 (I use some adaptation methods to face cancer). In the improved NDBCSS-R, individual scores on the NDBCSS-R scale can range from 0 to 64 with higher scores indicating higher stress.

3.5. Analysis of the Inter-Relationship between the Four-Factor Structures

Table 5 shows the inter-factor correlations between the four factors of the new NDBCSS-R. After removing item 5, the inter-factor correlation of the four factors ranged from 0.01 to 0.62, suggesting satisfactory discrimination. The correlation between “Negative perception” and “Threat”, “Negative perception” and “Unpredictable”, and “Threat” and “Unpredictable” were 0.50, 0.36, and 0.62, respectively (p < 0.001). The correlations between “Facing Challenge” and the other three factors were extremely low, ranging from 0.01 to 0.03.

4. Discussion

The prototype NDBCSS was designed to measure stress perceptions in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. However, CFA analysis indicated that this prototype had a poor model fit. To improve this scale, EFA analysis was conducted and found that the low-commonality of item 5 (Illness makes me worry about my job) suggested it should be removed and the remaining 16 items should be rearranged. The results of the scree plot, the values of factor loadings, and the associated confidence interval data showed that three- and five-factor solutions were unstable or had poor fit. Thus, the four-factor solution is still the best model and a new, revised NDBCSS-R was generated (Supplementary Materials). The new NDBCSS-R does have a better fit index than the old one (Table 4) and also has a high level of internal consistency. This evidence provided robust support for NDBCSS-R.
Women with breast cancer experience a range of negative reactions after diagnosis, including anger, depression, fear of treatment, psychological distress and despair. However, very few stress scales have been specifically developed for women with breast cancer. Therefore, many studies still use a universal stress scale to determine the stress index in cancer patients, such as the most commonly used PSS [47], DTS [48], and SAM [4]. The global measure of perceived stress, PSS, was established by Sheldon Cohen et al. [49] in 1983 to evaluate stress deriving from ongoing life circumstances. The PSS was developed using two groups of college students and one group of participants in a community smoking-cessation program, but did not include cancer patients. Thus, as the PSS was not designed for any specific population, it is a more comprehensive and versatile pressure scale. Conversely, the PSS may be less sensitive to stress perception in specific populations, for example, cancer populations.
The DTS is a self-reporting measure of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and is commonly used for large-scale evaluations of post-traumatic stress, such as veterans with PTSD [50]. The SAM includes major stress assessments, secondary stress assessments (e.g., coping resources), and overall perceived stressfulness, such as appraisal and coping with depressive symptoms in both stroke patients and spouses [51]. These scales are indeed suitable for children, adults and the general public of all ages but do not consider the psychological pressures faced by cancer patients, especially women with breast cancer who are starting families and parenting.
Breast cancer patients face severe psychological and physical reactions both before and after treatment. In addition to persistent pain, injuries to the arm and shoulder, and persistent high fatigue, breast cancer patients may experience psychological reactions, including psychological distress, depression, and anxiety [52,53,54,55,56]. A randomized pilot study showed that the degree of anxiety, depression and psychological distress of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients can be improved through individually tailored nurse-navigation interventions [57].
Another descriptive-exploratory study also showed that nurse navigator home visit interventions can successfully reduce the fear and distress among patients with a new breast cancer diagnosis [58]. In addition, nursing interventions have been shown to increase the level of hope in cancer patients through promoting psychological wellbeing and reducing psychological problems [59]. Therefore, it becomes very important to determine, in a timely manner, and understand the stress level of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients through a dedicated stress scale. Once the stress level of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients is understood, healthcare providers and their family members can not only help patients to get rid of negative emotions and fatalistic beliefs, but they can also learn to actively respond to cancer treatment and to plan their future life, achieving the goal of eliminating the vicious stress-illness-stress cycle often caused by breast cancer at the early stages.
Several limitations should be noted in this study. This stress scale was evaluated in Taiwan in a population of Taiwanese women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. The general conclusions of this study may therefore only be applicable to similar populations. Breast cancer patients from different countries and cultures may face different pressures, so this scale may need to be appropriately modified according to different cultural sensitivities. Compared with other CFA studies, the sample size of this study was relatively small. Since EFA and CFA were conducted using the same population, it may be necessary to conduct new research in order to adjust and verify the content items and confirm the new factor structure so as to ensure applicability to other populations.

5. Conclusions

As breast cancer survival rates have gradually improved, clinicians and researchers are now focusing more on improving quality of life and patient-centric survival outcomes. In order to provide newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with better practical strategies for maintaining hope and overcoming distress, depression, anxiety and fear of treatment, a better understanding of stress levels will be needed. In alignment with this new perspective, the improved NDBCSS-R has greater psychometric capability than the original NDBCSS, enabling the NDBCSS-R to better detect the stress level of breast cancer patients. In addition, the NDBCSS-R shows satisfactory reliability, validity and sufficient psychometric properties to specifically measure the perceived stress level of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. These advances will allow the new NDBCSS-R scale to facilitate more precise clinical interventions so as to relieve patient stress and help promote patient motivation for treatment.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/5/2346/s1, Table S1: Item scores of NDBCSS-R.

Author Contributions

The study was designed by T.-Y.L., T.-Y.L., S.-C.H. and C.-C.L. contributed to data collection. S.-C.H. and C.-C.L. performed the CFA analysis, EFA analysis, and the improvement of the model. T.-Y.L. wrote the draft manuscript, T.-Y.L. and C.-C.L. contributed to redrafting and approving the final draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by Cheng Hsin General Hospital, number CHGH107-28.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Institutional Review Board of the hospital (No. CHGH107-28).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consents were obtained from all subjects included in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Banas, T.; Juszczyk, G.; Pitynski, K.; Nieweglowska, D.; Ludwin, A.; Czerw, A. Incidence and mortality rates in breast, corpus uteri, and ovarian cancers in Poland (1980-2013): An analysis of population-based data in relation to socioeconomic changes. Oncotargets 2016, 9, 5521–5530. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ferlay, J.; Colombet, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Mathers, C.; Parkin, D.M.; Pineros, M.; Znaor, A.; Bray, F. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 144, 1941–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kirkham, A.A.; Beaudry, R.I.; Paterson, D.I.; Mackey, J.R.; Haykowsky, M.J. Curing breast cancer and killing the heart: A novel model to explain elevated cardiovascular disease and mortality risk among women with early stage breast cancer. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2019, 62, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cao, W.; Qi, X.; Cai, D.A.; Han, X. Modeling posttraumatic growth among cancer patients: The roles of social support, appraisals, and adaptive coping. Psychooncology 2018, 27, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Chen, Y.P.; Lu, Y.W.; Yang, C.C. Breast cancer trend in Taiwan. MOJ Women’s Health 2017, 6, 376–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Choi, S.W.; Ryu, S.Y.; Han, M.A.; Park, J. Higher breast cancer prevalence associated with higher socioeconomic status in the South Korean population; Has it resulted from overdiagnosis? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mubarik, S.; Malik, S.S.; Wang, Z.; Li, C.; Fawad, M.; Yu, C. Recent insights into breast cancer incidence trends among four Asian countries using age-period-cohort model. Cancer Manag. Res. 2019, 11, 8145–8155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gibbons, A.; Groarke, A.; Sweeney, K. Predicting general and cancer-related distress in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2016, 16, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kaplan, H.G.; Malmgren, J.A.; Atwood, M.K.; Calip, G.S. Effect of treatment and mammography detection on breast cancer survival over time: 1990–2007. Cancer 2015, 121, 2553–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ando, N.; Iwamitsu, Y.; Kuranami, M.; Okazaki, S.; Nakatani, Y.; Yamamoto, K.; Watanabe, M.; Miyaoka, H. Predictors of psychological distress after diagnosis in breast cancer patients and patients with benign breast problems. Psychosomatics 2011, 52, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ju, H.B.; Kang, E.C.; Jeon, D.W.; Kim, T.H.; Moon, J.J.; Kim, S.J.; Choi, J.M.; Jung, D.U. Associations Among Plasma Stress Markers and Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Breast Cancer Following Surgery. Psychiatry Investig. 2018, 15, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Osborne, R.H.; Elsworth, G.R.; Hopper, J.L. Age-specific norms and determinants of anxiety and depression in 731 women with breast cancer recruited through a population-based cancer registry. Eur. J. Cancer (Oxf. Engl. 1990) 2003, 39, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hinz, A.; Krauss, O.; Hauss, J.P.; Höckel, M.; Kortmann, R.D.; Stolzenburg, J.U.; Schwarz, R. Anxiety and depression in cancer patients compared with the general population. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2010, 19, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bertero, C.M. Affected self-respect and self-value: The impact of breast cancer treatment on self-esteem and QoL. Psychooncology 2002, 11, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Helms, R.L.; O’Hea, E.L.; Corso, M. Body image issues in women with breast cancer. Psychol. Health Med. 2008, 13, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hill, J.; Holcombe, C.; Clark, L.; Boothby, M.R.; Hincks, A.; Fisher, J.; Tufail, S.; Salmon, P. Predictors of onset of depression and anxiety in the year after diagnosis of breast cancer. Psychol. Med. 2011, 41, 1429–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Piot-Ziegler, C.; Sassi, M.L.; Raffoul, W.; Delaloye, J.F. Mastectomy, body deconstruction, and impact on identity: A qualitative study. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2010, 15, 479–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ciambella, C.C.; Taneja, C.; Dizon, D.S.; Wiggins, D.L.; Emmick, C.M.; Leonard, K.L.; Lopresti, M.L.; Witherby, S.; Cabral, D.; Snow, S.; et al. Distress: Characterizing What Causes the Thermometer to Shift in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Attending a Multidisciplinary Clinic. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 3204–3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Garofalo, J.P.; Choppala, S.; Hamann, H.A.; Gjerde, J. Uncertainty during the transition from cancer patient to survivor. Cancer Nurs. 2009, 32, E8–E14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Hoyer, M.; Johansson, B.; Nordin, K.; Bergkvist, L.; Ahlgren, J.; Lidin-Lindqvist, A.; Lambe, M.; Lampic, C. Health-related quality of life among women with breast cancer—A population-based study. Acta Oncol. (Stock. Swed.) 2011, 50, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Howard-Anderson, J.; Ganz, P.A.; Bower, J.E.; Stanton, A.L. Quality of life, fertility concerns, and behavioral health outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors: A systematic review. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2012, 104, 386–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kroenke, C.H.; Rosner, B.; Chen, W.Y.; Kawachi, I.; Colditz, G.A.; Holmes, M.D. Functional impact of breast cancer by age at diagnosis. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 1849–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ahmad, S.; Fergus, K.; McCarthy, M. Psychosocial issues experienced by young women with breast cancer: The minority group with the majority of need. Curr. Opin. Supportive Palliat. Care 2015, 9, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bidstrup, P.E.; Christensen, J.; Mertz, B.G.; Rottmann, N.; Dalton, S.O.; Johansen, C. Trajectories of distress, anxiety, and depression among women with breast cancer: Looking beyond the mean. Acta Oncol. (Stock. Swed.) 2015, 54, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kramer, J.R.; Ledolter, J.; Manos, G.N.; Bayless, M.L. Stress and metabolic control in diabetes mellitus: Methodological issues and an illustrative analysis. Ann. Behav. Med. A Publ. Soc. Behav. Med. 2000, 22, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Parks, C.G.; Miller, D.B.; McCanlies, E.C.; Cawthon, R.M.; Andrew, M.E.; DeRoo, L.A.; Sandler, D.P. Telomere length, current perceived stress, and urinary stress hormones in women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. Publ. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Cosponsored Am. Soc. Prev. Oncol. 2009, 18, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Waldman, S.V.; Diez, J.C.; Arazi, H.C.; Linetzky, B.; Guinjoan, S.; Grancelli, H. Burnout, perceived stress, and depression among cardiology residents in Argentina. Acad. Psychiatry J. Am. Assoc. Dir. Psychiatr. Resid. Train. Assoc. Acad. Psychiatry 2009, 33, 296–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Herschbach, P.; Keller, M.; Knight, L.; Brandl, T.; Huber, B.; Henrich, G.; Marten-Mittag, B. Psychological problems of cancer patients: A cancer distress screening with a cancer-specific questionnaire. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 91, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thewes, B.; Butow, P.; Girgis, A.; Pendlebury, S. The psychosocial needs of breast cancer survivors; a qualitative study of the shared and unique needs of younger versus older survivors. Psychooncology 2004, 13, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bond, M.H. Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology; Oxford University Press Academic: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wong, P.T.P.; Wong, L.C.J. Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. XXVI, 636. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chuang, W.L.; Chin, C.C. Information Needs of a Woman Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer. J. Heal. Sci. 2002, 4, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, T.Y.; Chen, H.H.; Yeh, M.L.; Li, H.L.; Chou, K.R. Measuring reliability and validity of a newly developed stress instrument: Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale. J. Clin. Nurs. 2013, 22, 2417–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, X.; Li, Y.; Han, N.; Chen, Y. Reliability and validity analysis of Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale. Chin. J. Mod. Nurs. 2018, 24, 916–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. ΜAΡΙA, Χ. Στάθμιση του ερωτηματολογίου “ Κλίμακα Στρες σε Πρόσφατα Διαγνωσμένες με Καρκίνο του Μαστού [Stress Management and Health Promotion Intervention on Breast Cancer Patients]; ΕΘΝΙΚO ΚAΙ ΚAΠOΔΙΣΤΡΙAΚO ΠAΝΕΠΙΣΤHΜΙO AΘHΝΩΝ: Athens, Greece, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, X.L.; Wang, J.H.; He, S.L. Confirmatory factor analysis of the shortened dentine hypersensitivity experience questionnaire. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi West China J. Stomatol. 2018, 36, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bentler, P.M. Confirmatory Factor Analysis via Noniterative Estimation: A Fast, Inexpensive Method. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Doll, W.J.; Xia, W.; Torkzadeh, G. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q. 1994, 18, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. MacCallum, R.C.; Hong, S. Power Analysis in Covariance Structure Modeling Using GFI and AGFI. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1997, 32, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Effendi, I.; Chaniago, S.; Lestari, I.; Nasib, N.; Chaniago, S.; Azzahra, A.s. Trust identification and smartphone purchase decisions (Structural equation modeling approach). Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2019, 10, 1020–1032. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hu, L.t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.H. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luo, B.; Xiao, S. Reliability and validity for Chinese version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban J. Cent. South Univ. Med Sci. 2019, 44, 823–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mulaik, S.A.; James, L.R.; Van Alstine, J.; Bennett, N.; Lind, S.; Stilwell, C.D. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 105, 430–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Breivik, E.; Olsson, U.H. Adding Variables to Improve Fit: The Effect of Model Size on Fit Assessment in LISREL; Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future. A Festschrifit in Honor of Karl Jöreskog; Scientific Software: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001; pp. 169–194. [Google Scholar]
  47. Abdollahi, A.; Panahipour, H.; Hosseinian, S.; Allen, K.A. The effects of perceived stress on hope in women with breast cancer and the role of psychological hardiness. Psychooncology 2019, 28, 1477–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Andrykowski, M.A.; Cordova, M.J.; Studts, J.L.; Miller, T.W. Posttraumatic stress disorder after treatment for breast cancer: Prevalence of diagnosis and use of the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C) as a screening instrument. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1998, 66, 586–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. McDonald, S.D.; Beckham, J.C.; Morey, R.A.; Calhoun, P.S. The validity and diagnostic efficiency of the Davidson Trauma Scale in military veterans who have served since September 11th, 2001. J. Anxiety Disord. 2009, 23, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Rochette, A.; Bravo, G.; Desrosiers, J.; St-Cyr Tribble, D.; Bourget, A. Adaptation process, participation and depression over six months in first-stroke individuals and spouses. Clin. Rehabil. 2007, 21, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Andersen, K.G.; Kehlet, H. Persistent pain after breast cancer treatment: A critical review of risk factors and strategies for prevention. J. Pain 2011, 12, 725–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bodtcher, H.; Bidstrup, P.E.; Andersen, I.; Christensen, J.; Mertz, B.G.; Johansen, C.; Dalton, S.O. Fatigue trajectories during the first 8 months after breast cancer diagnosis. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 2671–2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hidding, J.T.; Beurskens, C.H.; van der Wees, P.J.; van Laarhoven, H.W.; Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M.W. Treatment related impairments in arm and shoulder in patients with breast cancer: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mertz, B.G.; Bistrup, P.E.; Johansen, C.; Dalton, S.O.; Deltour, I.; Kehlet, H.; Kroman, N. Psychological distress among women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2012, 16, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mitchell, A.J.; Ferguson, D.W.; Gill, J.; Paul, J.; Symonds, P. Depression and anxiety in long-term cancer survivors compared with spouses and healthy controls: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 721–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mertz, B.G.; Dunn-Henriksen, A.K.; Kroman, N.; Johansen, C.; Andersen, K.G.; Andersson, M.; Mathiesen, U.B.; Vibe-Petersen, J.; Dalton, S.O.; Envold Bidstrup, P. The effects of individually tailored nurse navigation for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: A randomized pilot study. Acta Oncol. (Stockh. Swed.) 2017, 56, 1682–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Livsey, K.R.; Rossitch, J.C.; Tait, E.; Mannle, S.E.; Smith, R. Where Fear Begins: The Effect of a Nurse Navigator Home Visit to Decrease Distress in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients. J. Oncol. Navig. Surviv. 2017, 8, 584–592. [Google Scholar]
  59. Li, P.; Guo, Y.J.; Tang, Q.; Yang, L. Effectiveness of nursing intervention for increasing hope in patients with cancer: A meta-analysis. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2018, 26, e2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 02346 g001
Figure 1. Scree plot of NDBCSS in factor analysis with extraction method.
Figure 1. Scree plot of NDBCSS in factor analysis with extraction method.
Ijerph 18 02346 g001
Ijerph 18 02346 g002
Figure 2. Four-factor model of the NDBCSS-R stress scale with factor loadings and factor covariance. Asterisks indicate statistical significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Four-factor model of the NDBCSS-R stress scale with factor loadings and factor covariance. Asterisks indicate statistical significance at p < 0.05.
Ijerph 18 02346 g002
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics.
VariablesN = 195 (%)
Age
 <4549 (25.13)
 45–5480 (41.00)
 55–6445 (23.10)
 ≥6518 (9.20)
Marital status
 Unmarried (single, sivorced, separated and other)39 (20.00)
 Married156 (80.00)
Education level
 High school and below111 (56.96)
 College and above84 (43.10)
Income (NTD)
 <45,000 33 (25.00)
 45,000–69,99935 (26.52)
 70,000–99,99917 (12.88)
 ≥100,00047 (35.61)
Employment
 No104 (54.17)
 Yes88 (45.83)
Tumor stage
 058 (33.72)
 163 (36.63)
 245 (26.16)
 34 (2.33)
 42 (1.16)
Family history
 No152 (80.42)
 Yes37 (19.58)
Mammographic x-ray
 No117 (61.9)
 Yes72 (38.1)
Self-awareness of health
 Well49 (25.39)
 Not well144 (74.61)
Table 2. Cronbach α of the original Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale (NDBCSS) and improved NDBCSS-R.
Table 2. Cronbach α of the original Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Stress Scale (NDBCSS) and improved NDBCSS-R.
ScalesCronbach α
AllFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4
Original NDBCSS0.820.760.650.760.79
Improved NDBCSS-R0.840.750.760.790.79
Table 3. Rotated factor pattern matrix and interfactor correlations.
Table 3. Rotated factor pattern matrix and interfactor correlations.
Item No.Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4
Negative PerceptionThreatUnpredictableFacing Challenge
S010.830.110.15−0.02
S020.760.38−0.01−0.12
S060.720.110.310.17
S030.270.590.32−0.11
S090.320.660.000.33
S100.100.750.320.00
S120.200.680.33−0.14
S040.230.110.76−0.14
S07−0.100.320.550.01
S080.070.300.660.00
S110.040.180.75−0.06
S130.230.150.690.18
S14−0.12−0.06−0.020.72
S15−0.01−0.030.000.84
S160.020.03−0.030.80
S170.130.040.010.76
Bold items indicate major loadings for each item.
Table 4. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 4. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis.
ItemCMIN/DFGFIAGFINFIRFIIFITLICFIRMSEARMRPGFIPNFI
Guideline2–3>0.85>0.80>0.80>0.80>0.90>0.90>0.90<0.08<0.05>0.50>0.50
Original (NDBCSS)3.300.800.730.720.660.790.740.780.110.060.590.60
New (NDBCSS-R)2.480.920.810.870.830.920.900.920.080.040.630.65
Notes. CMIN/DF = chi-square fit statistics/degree of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI = normed fix index; RFI = relative fit index; IFI = incremental fix index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fix index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-fit-index; PNFI = parsimonious normed fit index.
Table 5. Correlation coefficient of each dimension and main scale (N = 195).
Table 5. Correlation coefficient of each dimension and main scale (N = 195).
Negative PerceptionThreatUnpredictableFacing Challenge
Negative perception-0.50 **0.36 **0.01
Threat -0.62 **0.05
Unpredictable -0.03
Facing Challenge -
** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, T.-Y.; Hsing, S.-C.; Li, C.-C. An Improved Stress-Scale Specifically Designed to Measure Stress of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052346

AMA Style

Lee T-Y, Hsing S-C, Li C-C. An Improved Stress-Scale Specifically Designed to Measure Stress of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(5):2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052346

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Tso-Ying, Shih-Chun Hsing, and Chin-Ching Li. 2021. "An Improved Stress-Scale Specifically Designed to Measure Stress of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 5: 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052346

APA Style

Lee, T.-Y., Hsing, S.-C., & Li, C.-C. (2021). An Improved Stress-Scale Specifically Designed to Measure Stress of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052346

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop