4.6 Article

Development of the cancer therapy satisfaction questionnaire: Item generation and content validity testing

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 S41-S53

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00073.x

关键词

cancer; chemotherapy; patient outcome assessment; questionnaire design; satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study was undertaken to develop a new questionnaire, the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), to focus on the issues oncology patients consider when evaluating chemotherapy in terms of expectations and satisfaction. Methods: Items of the CTSQ were generated through the review of responses from interviews with oncology patients, physicians, and nurses. Analysis of the data was stratified by disease stage, disease type, and country to explore potential differences between these groups. Two rounds of face and content validity testing were then conducted. Results: Patients explained their hopes for efficacy and factors related to treatment satisfaction. Content validity testing in 30 patients, followed by additional testing in 10 patients on oral therapy, suggested that patients felt the questionnaire was clear, comprehensive, relevant, and easy to complete. Minor revisions were implemented to improve clarity, resulting in deletion of 12 items, modification of 17 items and the rewording of chemotherapy to cancer therapy to ensure patients on oral therapy were able to respond. The CTSQ contains 21 items and assesses seven domains: Expectations of cancer therapy, Feelings about side effects, Oral cancer therapy adherence, Convenience, Satisfaction with cancer therapy, Stopping cancer therapy, and Reasons for nonadherence. Conclusions: The CTSQ was designed for adults with a wide range of cancer types and stages, receiving a variety of cancer treatment formulations. A validation study is currently underway to examine the psychometric properties, further refine the questionnaire and develop scoring methods for the CTSQ.

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