Is the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) valid for tailoring information for patients with head and neck cancer?

Matthew C Hankins, Carrie D Llewellyn, Matthew C Hankins, Carrie D Llewellyn

Abstract

Background: The Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) has previously been shown to be a valid and reliable measure responsive to changes in patient satisfaction over time. It has been suggested that the SCIP might be used to guide the tailored provision of treatment information to patients with head and neck cancer but for this purpose the discrimination of the SCIP, not its responsiveness, should be assessed. This paper assesses whether the SCIP is valid as a discriminative measure suitable to guide tailored information.

Methods: The SCIP comprises two parts (SCIP-A and SCIP-B). The discrimination of both parts was explored in a UK sample of 82 newly diagnosed patients with head and neck cancer. Principal components analysis (PCA) was first used to explore the factor structure of the SCIP-A and SCIP-B: discrimination analyses were then conducted at the level of full scale, subscale and item.

Results: Principal components analysis revealed a coherent three-factor solution for the SCIP-A and a single factor for SCIP-B. Both parts of the SCIP proved to be discriminating at the full scale level (SCIP-A Delta = 0.92; SCIP-B Delta = 0.90). The SCIP-A also proved to be discriminating at the subscale level (Delta = 0.85 to 0.89). For the SCIP-A there was wide variation in the discrimination of individual items, confirming its potential to tailor information at the item level. For the SCIP-B, responses to most items indicated uniform satisfaction, suggesting that it would not be useful for tailoring information at the item level.

Conclusion: The SCIP-A has been shown to be a valid discriminative measure and should prove suitable for tailoring treatment information at the level of item, subscale and total scale score. The SCIP-B, while a discriminating measure of total satisfaction, comprises too uniform a set of indicators of patient satisfaction to make it useful for tailoring information at the item level. Overall, the SCIP is valid as a measure of overall satisfaction with information about treatment and as a guide to tailoring such information.

References

    1. Semple CJ, McGowan B. Need for appropriate written information for patients, with particular reference to head and neck cancer. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2002;11:585–593. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2002.00641.x.
    1. Llewellyn CD, McGurk M, Weinman J. Striking the right balance: a qualitative pilot study examining the role of information on the development of expectations in patients treated for head and neck cancer. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2005;10:180–193. doi: 10.1080/1354850042000326593.
    1. Llewellyn CD, McGurk M, Weinman J. How satisfied are pre-treatment head and neck cancer patients with the information they receive about their treatment? Results from a new measure: the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) Oral Oncology. 2006;42:726–734. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2005.11.013.
    1. Ziegler L, Newell R, Stafford N, Lewin R. A literature review of head and neck cancer patients' information needs, experiences and views regarding decision making. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2004;13:119–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2004.00449.x.
    1. Weinman J. Providing written information for patients: psychological considerations. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1990;83:303–305.
    1. National Cancer Alliance Head and neck cancer patients views and experiences. NCA Report no 3. 2002.
    1. Edwards D. Head and neck cancer services: views of patients, their families and professionals. British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 1998;36:99–102. doi: 10.1016/S0266-4356(98)90175-9.
    1. Newell R, Ziegler L, Stafford N, Lewin R. The information needs of head and neck cancer patients prior to surgery. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2004;86:407–410. doi: 10.1308/147870804722.
    1. Sharpley CF, Christie DR. Patient information preferences among breast and prostate cancer patients. Australasian Radiology. 2007;51:154–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2007.01687.x.
    1. Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Cox A. The preferences of 600 patients for different descriptions of randomisation. British Journal of Cancer. 2005;92:807–10. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602445.
    1. Borras JM, Sanchez-Hernandez A, Navarro M, Martinez M, Mendez E, Ponton JL, Espinas JA, Germa JR. Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2001;322:826. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7290.826.
    1. Damian D, Tattersall MH. Letters to patients: improving communication in cancer care. Lancet. 1991;338:923–5. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91782-P.
    1. Jones RB, Pearson J, Cawsey AJ, Bental D, Barrett A, White J, White CA, Gilmour WH. Effect of different forms of information produced for cancer patients on their use of the information, social support, and anxiety: randomised trial. BMJ. 2006;332:942–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38807.571042.68.
    1. Mesters I, Borne B van den, De Boer M, Pruyn J. Measuring information needs among cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43:253–262. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00166-X.
    1. Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O'Neil J, et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with cancer. JAMA. 1997;277:1485–1492. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.18.1485.
    1. Graydon J, Galloway S, Palmer-Wickham S, Harrison D, Rich-van der Bij L, West P, et al. Information needs of women during early treatment for breast cancer. J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:59–64. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997026059.x.
    1. Llewellyn CD, Horne R, McGurk M, Weinman J. Development and preliminary validation of a new measure to assess satisfaction with information amongst head and neck cancer patients: The Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP. Head & Neck. 2006;28:540–548. doi: 10.1002/hed.20450.
    1. Horne R, Hankins M, Jenkins R. The Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS): a new measurement tool for audit and research. Quality in Health Care. 2001;10:135–140. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100135...
    1. Ferguson GA. On the theory of test discrimination. Psychometrika. 1949;14:61–68. doi: 10.1007/BF02290141.
    1. Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA. 1979.
    1. Hankins M. Questionnaire discrimination: (re)-introducing coefficient Delta. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2007;7:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-19.
    1. Nicholas G, Engberg J. Response Formats and Satisfaction Surveys for Elders. The Gerontologist. 2004;44:358–367.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit