Cancer patient assessment and reports of excellence: Reliability and validity of advanced cancer patient perceptions of the quality of care

Joan Teno, Julie C. Lima, Kathleen Doyle Lyons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Consumer perceptions are important measures of the quality of cancer care. This article describes the validation of new measures of the quality of cancer care at the time of diagnosis and treatment for advanced cancer with life-limiting prognosis. Methods Focus groups, review of guidelines, and an expert panel were used to construct two surveys of the quality of cancer care. A prospective cohort study examined the reliability and validity of three problem scores (ie, counts of the opportunities to improve the quality of care) that examine care at the time of diagnosis and initial treatment. Results At the first interview, 58% of 206 cancer patients (54.9% females; 27.5% with lung cancer; 5.4% with pancreatic cancer; 30.4% with colorectal cancer; 18.6% with breast cancer; mean age, 66.6 years) identified one or more concerns with communication about being diagnosed with advanced cancer. At the second interview, 57.0% of the respondents voiced one or more concerns about treatment communication, and 30.2% expressed one or more concerns about the experience of treatment. Each of the problem scores demonstrated both internal consistency with Cronbach's a >.75 and short-term stability of responses in a subsample that had the survey administered twice in 72 hours. Factor analysis largely confirmed the proposed scale structure. All three measures demonstrated moderate correlations suggesting evidence of construct validity. Conclusion The three proposed problem scores demonstrate evidence of reliability and validity that warrants further testing to examine their responsiveness and discriminate validity in larger, more general- izable samples.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1621-1626
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume27
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Quality of Health Care
Reproducibility of Results
Neoplasms
Communication
Interviews
Therapeutics
Focus Groups
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Statistical Factor Analysis
Colorectal Neoplasms
Lung Neoplasms
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Guidelines
Breast Neoplasms
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Cancer patient assessment and reports of excellence : Reliability and validity of advanced cancer patient perceptions of the quality of care. / Teno, Joan; Lima, Julie C.; Lyons, Kathleen Doyle.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 27, No. 10, 01.04.2009, p. 1621-1626.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a16459adb51840a988054ab8b27a39e6,
title = "Cancer patient assessment and reports of excellence: Reliability and validity of advanced cancer patient perceptions of the quality of care",
abstract = "Purpose Consumer perceptions are important measures of the quality of cancer care. This article describes the validation of new measures of the quality of cancer care at the time of diagnosis and treatment for advanced cancer with life-limiting prognosis. Methods Focus groups, review of guidelines, and an expert panel were used to construct two surveys of the quality of cancer care. A prospective cohort study examined the reliability and validity of three problem scores (ie, counts of the opportunities to improve the quality of care) that examine care at the time of diagnosis and initial treatment. Results At the first interview, 58{\%} of 206 cancer patients (54.9{\%} females; 27.5{\%} with lung cancer; 5.4{\%} with pancreatic cancer; 30.4{\%} with colorectal cancer; 18.6{\%} with breast cancer; mean age, 66.6 years) identified one or more concerns with communication about being diagnosed with advanced cancer. At the second interview, 57.0{\%} of the respondents voiced one or more concerns about treatment communication, and 30.2{\%} expressed one or more concerns about the experience of treatment. Each of the problem scores demonstrated both internal consistency with Cronbach's a >.75 and short-term stability of responses in a subsample that had the survey administered twice in 72 hours. Factor analysis largely confirmed the proposed scale structure. All three measures demonstrated moderate correlations suggesting evidence of construct validity. Conclusion The three proposed problem scores demonstrate evidence of reliability and validity that warrants further testing to examine their responsiveness and discriminate validity in larger, more general- izable samples.",
author = "Joan Teno and Lima, {Julie C.} and Lyons, {Kathleen Doyle}",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2008.16.6348",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "1621--1626",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cancer patient assessment and reports of excellence

T2 - Reliability and validity of advanced cancer patient perceptions of the quality of care

AU - Teno, Joan

AU - Lima, Julie C.

AU - Lyons, Kathleen Doyle

PY - 2009/4/1

Y1 - 2009/4/1

N2 - Purpose Consumer perceptions are important measures of the quality of cancer care. This article describes the validation of new measures of the quality of cancer care at the time of diagnosis and treatment for advanced cancer with life-limiting prognosis. Methods Focus groups, review of guidelines, and an expert panel were used to construct two surveys of the quality of cancer care. A prospective cohort study examined the reliability and validity of three problem scores (ie, counts of the opportunities to improve the quality of care) that examine care at the time of diagnosis and initial treatment. Results At the first interview, 58% of 206 cancer patients (54.9% females; 27.5% with lung cancer; 5.4% with pancreatic cancer; 30.4% with colorectal cancer; 18.6% with breast cancer; mean age, 66.6 years) identified one or more concerns with communication about being diagnosed with advanced cancer. At the second interview, 57.0% of the respondents voiced one or more concerns about treatment communication, and 30.2% expressed one or more concerns about the experience of treatment. Each of the problem scores demonstrated both internal consistency with Cronbach's a >.75 and short-term stability of responses in a subsample that had the survey administered twice in 72 hours. Factor analysis largely confirmed the proposed scale structure. All three measures demonstrated moderate correlations suggesting evidence of construct validity. Conclusion The three proposed problem scores demonstrate evidence of reliability and validity that warrants further testing to examine their responsiveness and discriminate validity in larger, more general- izable samples.

AB - Purpose Consumer perceptions are important measures of the quality of cancer care. This article describes the validation of new measures of the quality of cancer care at the time of diagnosis and treatment for advanced cancer with life-limiting prognosis. Methods Focus groups, review of guidelines, and an expert panel were used to construct two surveys of the quality of cancer care. A prospective cohort study examined the reliability and validity of three problem scores (ie, counts of the opportunities to improve the quality of care) that examine care at the time of diagnosis and initial treatment. Results At the first interview, 58% of 206 cancer patients (54.9% females; 27.5% with lung cancer; 5.4% with pancreatic cancer; 30.4% with colorectal cancer; 18.6% with breast cancer; mean age, 66.6 years) identified one or more concerns with communication about being diagnosed with advanced cancer. At the second interview, 57.0% of the respondents voiced one or more concerns about treatment communication, and 30.2% expressed one or more concerns about the experience of treatment. Each of the problem scores demonstrated both internal consistency with Cronbach's a >.75 and short-term stability of responses in a subsample that had the survey administered twice in 72 hours. Factor analysis largely confirmed the proposed scale structure. All three measures demonstrated moderate correlations suggesting evidence of construct validity. Conclusion The three proposed problem scores demonstrate evidence of reliability and validity that warrants further testing to examine their responsiveness and discriminate validity in larger, more general- izable samples.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=63749087498&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=63749087498&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.6348

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.6348

M3 - Article

C2 - 19255336

AN - SCOPUS:63749087498

VL - 27

SP - 1621

EP - 1626

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 10

ER -