Evaluating cancer patients' experiences with doctor-patient communication in Taiwan: development and validation of a new assessment instrument.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hsin-Yi Yang, Yung-Chang Lin, Wen-Chi Shen, Shin-Cheh Chen, Chao-Hui Wang, Mei-Ling Chen
{"title":"Evaluating cancer patients' experiences with doctor-patient communication in Taiwan: development and validation of a new assessment instrument.","authors":"Hsin-Yi Yang, Yung-Chang Lin, Wen-Chi Shen, Shin-Cheh Chen, Chao-Hui Wang, Mei-Ling Chen","doi":"10.1007/s00520-024-08990-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Effective communication between doctors and patients is crucial for the well-being of individuals diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to develop and validate a cancer-specific Doctor-Patient Communication Satisfaction Scale (DPCSS-Cancer) from the patients' perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initial items were generated through literature review. Content validity was assessed via feedback from five experts, while face validity was determined through cognitive interviews with 13 patients. The revised DPCSS-Cancer was subsequently tested in a sample of 200 cancer patients to assess test-retest stability, internal consistency, factor structure, and criterion-related validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The development process resulted in a 15-item DPCSS-Cancer across two dimensions, using a 4-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, with a scale-level CVI of 0.96. Following expert and patient feedback, no items were eliminated, but modifications were made to item wording. In formal testing, the overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, with 0.89 for the first dimension and 0.95 for the second. Test-retest reliability was established at 0.82. The two-dimensional structure was partially confirmed. Criterion-related validity was supported through a significant positive correlation with a measure of trust in the physician (r = 0.86). Factors contributing to higher DPCSS-Cancer scores were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DPCSS-Cancer shows satisfactory reliability and validity, making it a viable patient-reported outcome measure for assessing cancer patients' satisfaction with doctor-patient communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"32 12","pages":"781"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08990-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Effective communication between doctors and patients is crucial for the well-being of individuals diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to develop and validate a cancer-specific Doctor-Patient Communication Satisfaction Scale (DPCSS-Cancer) from the patients' perspective.

Methods: Initial items were generated through literature review. Content validity was assessed via feedback from five experts, while face validity was determined through cognitive interviews with 13 patients. The revised DPCSS-Cancer was subsequently tested in a sample of 200 cancer patients to assess test-retest stability, internal consistency, factor structure, and criterion-related validity.

Results: The development process resulted in a 15-item DPCSS-Cancer across two dimensions, using a 4-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, with a scale-level CVI of 0.96. Following expert and patient feedback, no items were eliminated, but modifications were made to item wording. In formal testing, the overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, with 0.89 for the first dimension and 0.95 for the second. Test-retest reliability was established at 0.82. The two-dimensional structure was partially confirmed. Criterion-related validity was supported through a significant positive correlation with a measure of trust in the physician (r = 0.86). Factors contributing to higher DPCSS-Cancer scores were identified.

Conclusion: The DPCSS-Cancer shows satisfactory reliability and validity, making it a viable patient-reported outcome measure for assessing cancer patients' satisfaction with doctor-patient communication.

台湾癌症患者的医患沟通体验评估:新评估工具的开发与验证。
导言:医患之间的有效沟通对癌症患者的健康至关重要。本研究旨在从患者的角度出发,开发并验证针对癌症的医患沟通满意度量表(DPCSS-Cancer):方法:通过文献综述生成初步项目。通过五位专家的反馈评估了内容效度,通过与 13 位患者的认知访谈确定了表面效度。修订后的 DPCSS-Cancer 随后在 200 名癌症患者样本中进行了测试,以评估测试重复稳定性、内部一致性、因子结构和标准相关有效性:在开发过程中,采用 4 点评分法(1 = 非常不同意到 4 = 非常同意),在两个维度上开发出了 15 个项目的 DPCSS-癌症。项目级内容效度指数(I-CVI)介于 0.8 至 1.0 之间,量表级内容效度指数为 0.96。根据专家和患者的反馈意见,没有删除任何项目,但对项目措辞进行了修改。在正式测试中,总体克朗巴赫α值为 0.96,其中第一维度为 0.89,第二维度为 0.95。重测信度为 0.82。二维结构得到了部分证实。标准相关效度与医生信任度呈显著正相关(r = 0.86)。结论:DPCSS-Cancer显示出令人满意的可靠性和有效性,使其成为评估癌症患者对医患沟通满意度的一种可行的患者报告结果测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信