Psychometric assessment and application of a questionnaire measuring patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment
- 328 Downloads
Objective: Pharmaceutical care follows a needs-based approach. Cancer patients form a group with particular needs. Information about cancer treatment plays an important role in terms of coping strategies, initiation of self-care behaviour, and quality of life. In order to develop pharmaceutical care strategies for cancer patients, it is important to assess patients’ information needs. This survey aims at providing a suitable instrument to measure patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment and to reveal the present situation in Germany.
Methods: Since there was no suitable German measure available, the Canadian ‘Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment Education (PS-CaTE) questionnaire’ was translated into German and its test quality criteria were examined. Selected socio-demographic variables were added to the original version of the questionnaire to facilitate subgroup analysis. A pre-test was performed to assess the reliability of the adapted instrument.The questionnaire was distributed among patients of cooperating hospitals, oncology practices, and self-aid groups over Germany.
Results: The pre-test established a good reliability of the instrument. In the main survey, overall satisfaction, on a 5- point Likert scale, showed a median score of 3.5, where 5 represented the highest degree of satisfaction. A subscale analysis revealed that satisfaction with information provided on adverse events and complementary treatment options was lower compared to the information provided on cancer treatment. A stepwise multiple-regression analysis identified three significant predictors of satisfaction: a) diagnosis of a mammary carcinoma; b) recent diagnosis; and c) treatment by a primary-care oncologist. Patients with a mammary carcinoma and patients treated by a primary-care oncologist were less satisfied, and patients with a recent diagnosis were more satisfied compared to other patients. In comparison to other information sources, pharmacists still seem to play a minor role as a source of information for patients.
Conclusions: The version of the questionnaire with a total of 14 items seems to be suitable for measuring patient satisfaction with information. Additional research is needed to further verify the validity of the instrument. The questionnaire may help pharmaceutical-care providers to develop needs-based information strategies. The assessment of patient satisfaction can contribute to the outcome evaluation of pharmaceutical care. The fact that pharmacists are not yet being recognised by most patients as a source of information should support an intensified and more active offer of care by the pharmacist.
KeywordsCancer care Competent patient Germany Information needs Information sources Patient satisfaction Pharmaceutical care Questionnaire Reliability Validation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. International Conference on Health Promotion. World Health Organization, 1986. www. who.dk/aboutwho/policy/20010827_2Google Scholar
- 7.Pohar, KJ, Taylor, SCM. 2000Ambulatory Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment EducationJ Oncol Pharm Pract631Google Scholar
- 9.Streiner, DL, Norman, GR. 2000Health measurement scales- a practical guide to their development and useOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
- 10.Crocker, L, Algina, J. 1986Introduction to classical and modern test theoryHolt, Rinehart and WinstonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
- 11.Lord, FM, Novick, MP.MA 1968Statistical theories of mental test scores.Addison-WesleyReadingGoogle Scholar
- 12.Devellis, RF. 1991Scale developmentTheory and applications. Sage PublicationsNewbury Park CAGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ried, LD, Wang, F, Young, H, Awiphan, R. 1999Patients’ satisfaction and their perception of the pharmacistJ Am Pharm Assoc3983542Google Scholar
- 19.Janel G, Sing D, Grochocka A, Pfaff AB. Probleme im Versorgungsprozess aus der Sicht von Brustkrebspatientinnen und Ärzten. [in German] Forum 2000; 15(4): 24–7.Google Scholar