DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Satisfaction with Care EORTC-in-patsat32 Questionnaire among Iranian Cancer Patients

  • Pishkuhi, Mahin Ahmadi (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Salmaniyan, Soraya (Radiotherapy, Medical Oncology, Oncopathology Research Centre, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Nedjat, Saharnaz (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Zendedel, Kazem (Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Lari, Mohsen Asadi (Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2015.01.06

Abstract

Background: Cancers impose an increasing burden on health of the populations and individuals, but little is known about cancer patient satisfaction with care. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Persian version of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) In-Patsat32, as a recently developed questionnaire to assess cancer patient satisfaction with care and information provided during hospital admission. Materials and Methods: Complying with EORTC protocols, the Persian version of Inpatsat32 was translated and piloted in a small group of patients, then applied to 380 cancer patients admitted to different oncology wards in Tehran. Validity (convergent, discriminant, and divergent) and reliability of the tool was assessed through using multitrait analysis, factor analysis, intraclass correlations, Chronbach's alpha and test-retest (on a sample of 70 patients). Results: Good acceptance and high sensitivity of the questionnaire with low floor and ceiling effects were recognized, indicating power of the instrument to detect differences between groups with heterogeneous levels of satisfaction. Multitrait scaling analyses supported the convergent validity of the majority of scales (correlation coefficient >0.4) and favorable discriminant validity (item own scale correlation >0.8). There was no correlation between In-patsat32 scales and the EORTC-C30, which measures different concepts, confirming divergent validity of the tool. Internal consistency for all domains was high (${\alpha}$ >0.70) except for the hospital access score and the test-retest reliability was excellent (r=0.86-0.96). There was a weak responsiveness to change except for nurses technical skills. Principle component analysis confirmed five domains with much improved internal consistency (${\alpha}$ >0.9). Conclusions: The Persian version of the EORTC-in-patsat32 module is a reliable and valid instrument to measure cancer patient satisfaction with care received during their hospitalization period and can be utilized in clinical cancer research.

Keywords

EORTC-in-patsat32;psychometric properties;cancer;patient satisfaction;validation

References

  1. Arraras JI, Illarramendi JJ, Viudez A, et al (2012). The cancer outpatient satisfaction with care questionnaire for chemotherapy, out-patsat35 ct: a validation study for spanish patients. Supportive Care In Cancer, 1-10.
  2. Arraras JI, Rico M, Vila M, et al (2010). The eortc cancer outpatient satisfaction with care questionnaire in ambulatory radiotherapy: eortc out patsat35 rt. validation study for spanish patients. Psycho Oncol, 19, 657-64.
  3. Arraras JI, Vera R, Martinez M, et al (2009). The eortc cancer in-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire: eortc inpatsat32 validation study for spanish patients. Clin Transl Oncol, 11, 237-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-009-0346-6
  4. Asadi-Lari M, Packham C, Gray D (2003). Patients' satisfaction and quality of life in coronary artery disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-57
  5. Asadi-Lari M, Tamburini M, Gray D (2004). Patients' Needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: towards a comprehensive model. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-32
  6. Bredart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby J, et al (2005). An international prospective study of the eortc cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (Eortc In-Patsat32). European J Cancer, 41, 2120-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.04.041
  7. Bredart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby JM, et al (2005). An international prospective study of the eortc cancer inpatient satisfaction with care measure (Eortc In-Patsat32). Eur J Cancer, 41, 2120-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.04.041
  8. Bredart A, Coens C, Aaronson, et al (2007). Determinants of patient satisfaction in oncology settings from european and asian countries: preliminary results based on the eortc in-patsat32 questionnaire. European J Cancer, 43, 323-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.016
  9. Bredart A, Razavi D, Delvaux N, et al (1998). A comprehensive assessment of satisfaction with care for cancer patients. Supportive Care In Cancer, 6, 518-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005200050207
  10. Esmaili-Hesari RA, Homai-Shandiz F, Motevallian A, et al (2012). Do clinical and demographic features of patients with upper-gastrointestinal cancer affect their health-related quality of life? Int J Prev Med, 3, 783-90.
  11. Fayers P, Bottomley A (2002). Quality of life research within the eortc-the eortc Qlq-C30. European organisation for research and treatment of cancer. European J Cancer, 38, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00448-8
  12. Hirsch O, Keller H, Albohn-Kuhne C, Krones T, DonnerBanzhoff N (2011). Pitfalls in the statistical examination and interpretation of the correspondence between physician and patient satisfaction ratings and their relevance for shared decision making research. Bmc Medical Research Methodology, 11, 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-71
  13. Hjorleifsdottir E, Hallberg IR, Gunnarsdottir ED (2010). Satisfaction with care in oncology outpatient clinics: psychometric characteristics of the icelandic eortc inpatsat32 version. J Clin Nurs, 19, 1784-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03095.x
  14. Inrig T, Amey B, Borthwick C, Beaton D (2012). Validity and reliability of the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (fabq) in workers with upper extremity injuries. Journal Of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9323-3
  15. Jayasekara H, Rajapaksa L, Bredart A (2008). Psychometric evaluation of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer in-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire ('sinhala' version) for use in a South-Asian setting. Int J Qual Health Care, 20, 221-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn006
  16. Jemal A, Center MM, Desantis C, Ward EM (2010). Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 19, 1893-907. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0437
  17. Kavadas V, Barham C, FinchJones M, et al (2004). Assessment of satisfaction with care after inpatient treatment for oesophageal and gastric cancer. Br J Surg, 91, 719-723. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4509
  18. Labarere J, Francois P, Auquier P, Robert C, Fourny M (2001). Development of a french inpatient satisfaction questionnaire. International J Quality In Health Care, 13, 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/13.2.99
  19. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, et al (2013). Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. The Lancet, 380, 2095-128.
  20. Mclachlan SA, Devins G, Goodwin P (1998). Validation of the european organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire (Qlq-C30) as a measure of psychosocial function in breast cancer patients. European J Cancer, 34, 510. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(97)10076-4
  21. Obtel M, El Achhab Y, Bendahhou K, et al (2012). Measuring patient satisfaction in moroccan oncology institutions eortc in-patsat32 and satisfaction in moroccan patient with cancer. Journal Africain Du Cancer/African Journal of Cancer, 4, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12558-011-0185-6
  22. Osoba D, Aaronson N, Zee B, Sprangers M, Te Velde A (1997). Modification of the eortc Qlq-C30 (Version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. quality of life research, 6.
  23. Ribera A, Permanyer-Miralda G, Alonso J, et al (2006). Is psychometric scoring of the mcnew quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire superior to the clinimetric scoring? a comparison of the two approaches. Qual Life Res, 15, 357-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-2291-3
  24. Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, et al (2008). Eortc Qlq-C30 Reference Values. Eortc.
  25. Shiva A, Haden SC, Brooks J (2009). Psychiatric civil and forensic inpatient satisfaction with care: the impact of provider and recipient characteristics. Social Psychiatry And Psychiatric Epidemiol, 44, 979-987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0019-3

Cited by

  1. Transcultural adaptation of the user satisfaction scale to the health service: Brazilian version of the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire pp.1699-3055, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1780-5
  2. A systematic review of the measurement properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer In-patient Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 vol.26, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4243-9