4.6 Article

Validation of the modified Chinese Cancer Survivor's Unmet Needs (CaSUN-C) for women with breast cancer

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 236-242

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.4499

关键词

breast cancer survivors; Chinese; supportive care needs; unmet needs; validation

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST104-2314-B-006-094-, MOST104-2314-B-006-104-]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe aims of the study were to modify the Cancer Survivor's Unmet Need (CaSUN) Scale into a short form and then test its psychometric scale-specific properties for breast cancer survivors in Taiwan. MethodsUsing convenience sampling, recruited breast cancer survivors were separated into 2 samples (sample 1, n=150, and sample 2, n=162). First, we translated and modified the CaSUN to ensure cultural adaptation. Second, we used statistical methods to eliminate some items and conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using sample 1 to explore the factor structure of the CaSUN-C. Finally, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using sample 2 to confirm the structure suggested by the EFA and tested the criterion validity and known-group validity of the CaSUN-C. ResultsTwenty items within 4 factors (information, physical /psychological, medical care, and communication needs) were identified for the CaSUN-C. Each factor had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha=.61 to .82). The criterion validity was supported by the significant correlations between the CaSUN-C scores and scores on fear of recurrence and depression. Known-group comparisons revealed that women who survived more than 60months had fewer physical/psychological needs than those less 60months, which supported the validity of CaSUN-C. ConclusionThe CaSUN-C demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity for assessing unmet needs among breast cancer survivors in Taiwan. Using this simple assessment to target the individual needs of these survivors can help healthcare professionals provide personalized care efficiently.

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