4.4 Article

Validation of the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey and 8-item Breast module French versions (SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr) in breast cancer patients

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 450-459

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2012.01356.x

Keywords

supportive care; breast cancer; needs assessment; French validation; SCNS-SF34; SCNS-BR8

Funding

  1. French National Cancer League
  2. France Foundation
  3. University Hospital CHUV

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the psychometric robustness of the French version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey and breast cancer (BC) module (SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr). Breast cancer patients were recruited in two hospitals (in Paris, France and Lausanne, Switzerland) either in ambulatory chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or surgery services. They were invited to complete the SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr as well as quality of life and patient satisfaction questionnaires. Three hundred and eighty-four (73% response rate) BC patients returned completed questionnaires. A five-factor model was confirmed for the SCNS-SF34-Fr with adequate goodness-of-fit indexes, although some items evidenced content redundancy, and a one-factor was identified for the SCNS-BR8-Fr. Internal consistency and testretest estimates were satisfactory for most scales. The SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr scales demonstrated conceptual differences with the quality of life and satisfaction with care scales, highlighting the specific relevance of this assessment. Different levels of needs could be differentiated between groups of BC patients in terms of age and level of education (P < 0.001). The SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr present adequate psychometric properties despite some redundant items. These questionnaires allow for the crucial endeavour to design appropriate care services according to BC patients' characteristics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available