4.6 Article

Metrics to evaluate treatment summaries and survivorship care plans: A scorecard

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1475-1483

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-2107-x

关键词

Cancer care; Cancer survivors; Survivorship care plans; Treatment summaries; Institute of Medicine

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R21CA169950-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer have called for provision of treatment summaries (TSs) and survivorship care plans (SCPs) at the end of primary cancer therapy and endorsed guidelines for content. Institutions are providing TS/SCPs but with little guidance concerning concordance with IOM recommended content. This manuscript presents a recently developed tool to allow rating of breast cancer-specific TS/SCPs as a model for assessing concordance with IOM recommendations and facilitating research and clinical fidelity. An interdisciplinary team developed items mapped to the IOM recommendations for TS/SCP content as well as scoring rules. Dual raters used this tool to independently assess 65 completed TS/SCPs from 13 different cancer treatment facilities affiliated with the LIVESTRONG Survivorship Centers of Excellence to assess reliability. The final set of measures contained 92 items covering TSs and SCPs. The TS scale consisted of 13 informational domains across 60 items, while the SCP scale had 10 domains across 32 items. Inter-rater reliability within TSs indicated substantial agreement (M kappa = 0.76, CI = 0.73-0.79), and interclass correlation (ICC) was high (ICC = 0.85, CI = 0.76-0.91). For the SCP scale, inter-rater reliability was also substantial (M kappa = 0.66, CI = 0.62-0.70), as was interclass correlation (ICC = 0.75, CI = 0.62-0.84). Concordance with IOM recommendations for TS/SCP information can be reliably assessed using this instrument, which should facilitate implementation efforts, allow comparison of different TS/SCPs, and facilitate research into the utility of TS/SCPs including which elements are essential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据