ABSTRACT
Advances in cancer care delivery require revision and further development of questionnaires assessing patients' perceived quality of care. This study pre-tested the revised EORTC satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire applicable in both the cancer inpatient and outpatient settings, and its new, outpatient-specific complementary module. The process of revision, development of the extended application, and pre-testing of these questionnaires was based on phases I to III of the "EORTC Quality of Life Group Module Development Guidelines." In phase III, patients in 11 countries in four European regions, South America and Asia completed provisional versions of the questionnaires. Fifty-seven relevant issues selected from literature reviews and input from experts were operationalized into provisional items, and subsequently translated into ten languages. Assessment of understanding, acceptability, redundancy and relevance by patients (n = 151) from oncology inpatient wards, and outpatient chemotherapy, radiotherapy and consultation settings, led to retention of, deletion of and merging of 40, 14 and 6 items respectively. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for hypothesized questionnaire scales were above 0.80. Our results provide preliminary support for the 33-item EORTC Satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire and the 7-item complementary module specific for the outpatient care setting. A large scale phase IV cross-cultural psychometric study is now underway.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Satisfaction , Aged , Ambulatory Care , Europe , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Societies, Medical , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
This qualitative study aimed to explore cancer patients' perceived tolerance of side effects in phase I drug trials. Patients with solid tumours receiving molecularly targeted agents with/without chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with 17 patients with a median [range] age of 63 [41-72] years. Treatment was discontinued in seven patients. Verbatim transcripts of the audio-taped interviews were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Four conceptual categories emerged from data analysis, labelled "suffering from side effects" comprising a range of symptoms, psychosocial or role disturbances; "striving to cope with side effects" reflecting psychological strategies for managing side effects; "hoping" reflecting expectations about treatment efficacy and relief from side effects; and "appraisal of care." Among patients remaining in the trial, treatment was currently perceived as fairly tolerable. For most respondents, whether still in a trial or not, treatment discontinuation could not be justified by the non-tolerance of treatment side effects. These results question the adequacy of patient-perceived tolerance reports to determine an optimal drug dose for phase II trials. Confronted with patients' hopes and inappropriate beliefs, communication is challenging in phase I trials and could benefit from facilitating psychosocial interventions.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic/psychology , Molecular Targeted Therapy/adverse effects , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/psychology , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer care is increasingly provided in the outpatient setting, requiring specific monitoring of care quality. The patients' perspective is an important indicator of care quality and needs to be assessed with well designed, psychometrically sound questionnaires. We performed a systematic literature review of currently available patient satisfaction measures for use in cancer outpatient care settings. METHODS: We carried out MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus searches of papers published over the past 15 years that describe cancer patient satisfaction questionnaires for use in the outpatient setting. We used the adapted COSMIN checklist to assess the quality of the questionnaires' measurement properties. RESULTS: A total of 6677 citations were identified and 76 relevant articles were read, of which 55 were found either not to be relevant or to provide insufficient psychometric information. The remaining 21 studies pertained to 14 patient satisfaction questionnaires. Continuity and transition, accessibility, and involvement of family/friends were less frequently addressed despite their relevance in outpatient oncology. Almost half of the psychometric studies did not provide information on item level missing data. Most internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's α) were satisfactory. Few studies reported test-retest assessment (n = 5), used confirmatory factor analysis (n = 2), or assessed fit to a graded response item response theory model (n = 3). Only three questionnaires were cross-culturally validated. CONCLUSION: Important aspects of care may be missed by current patient satisfaction questionnaires for use in the cancer outpatient setting. Additional evidence is needed of their psychometric performance, especially for cross-cultural comparative assessments.
