Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 11/2005

01-11-2005 | Original Article

Evaluation of a revised instrument to assess the needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer

Authors: Janine M. Duke, Carla J. Treloar, Julie E. Byles

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 11/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study was conducted to assess the face, content and construct validity and the internal validity of the revised version of an instrument to measure the perceived needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer [Prostate Cancer Needs Questionnaire version 2 (PCNQv2)]. The PCNQ was constructed in two parts with Part 1 measuring needs at diagnosis and initial treatment and Part 2 measuring current needs.

Methods

A random sample of 650 men diagnosed with prostate cancer attending a Urologist of the Hunter Urology Group in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, were invited to participate in the study and sent by post the self-administered PCNQ. Information was provided on 145 men who were considered ineligible to participate. Completed questionnaires were received from 300 men.

Results

The principal components method of factor analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation identified eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which together accounted for 68% of the variance in Part 1 of the PCNQ. Likewise, six factors were identified in Part 2 which accounted for 68% of the variance. Internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were adequate for identified factors with values ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for Part 1, and from 0.80 to 0.92 for Part 2.

Conclusions

These results support the validity and reliability of the PCNQv2 to assess the perceived needs experienced by men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Literature
1.
AIHW, AACR, Cancer in Australia 2000. AIHW cat. no. CAN 18. 2003, AIHW (Cancer Series no.23), Canberra
2.
Coates M, Tracey E (2001) Cancer in New South Wales. Incidence and mortality 1998 and incidence for selected cancers 1999. NSW Central Cancer Registry. Cancer Research and Registers Division. NSW Cancer Council
3.
Litwin MS et al (1998) Quality-of-life outcomes in long-term survivors of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 21(4):327–332
4.
Skeel RT (1993) Quality of life dimensions that are the most important to cancer patients. Oncology 7:55–61
5.
Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL (1978) The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction: a review of the literature. Health Med Care Serv Rev 1:1–15
6.
Anderson PJ et al (1998) Prostate disease patients: planning services to meet their coping needs. Urol Nurs 18(3):195–197
7.
Davis C et al (1998) Needs assessment of rural and remote women travelling to the city for breast cancer treatment. Aust N Z J Public Health 22(5):525–527
8.
Foot GG, Sanson-Fisher R (1995) Measuring the unmet needs of people living with cancer. Cancer Forum 19(2):131–135
9.
Sanson-Fisher R et al (2000) The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Supportive Care Review Group. Cancer 88(1):226–237
10.
Bonevski B et al (2000) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with care. Cancer 88:217–225
11.
McDowell I, Newell C (1996) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
12.
Bowling A (1997) Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham
13.
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH (1988) Clinical epidemiology: the essentials, 2nd edn. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore
14.
Streiner DL, Norman GR (1991) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford
15.
Windsor R, Baranowski T, Clark N, Cutter G (1994) Evaluation of health promotion, health education, and disease prevention programs, 2nd edn. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA
16.
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334
17.
Duke JM et al (2003) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer 97:993–1001
18.
Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376
19.
Duke JM et al (2001) The perceived needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Australas Epidemiol 8:34–43
20.
Converse JM, Presser S (1986) Survey questions: handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA
21.
Kim J, Mueller CW (1978) Factor analysis: statistical methods and practical issues. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills
22.
StataCorp (1999) Stata statistical software: release 6.0. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX
23.
Schafer JL (1998) Multiple imputation: a primer. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
24.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. HarperCollins College, New York
25.
Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ (1987) Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 34(4):414–424
26.
Kass RA, Tinsley HEA (1979) Factor analysis. J Leis Res 11:120–138
27.
Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP (1982) Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. Brooks/Cole Publishing, California
28.
Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
29.
Boberg EW et al (2003) Assessing the unmet information, support and care delivery needs of men with prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns 49(3):233–242
30.
Dahn JR et al (2004) Sexual functioning and quality of life after prostate cancer treatment: considering sexual desire. Urology 63(2):273–277
31.
Clark JA et al (2003) Patients’ perceptions of quality of life after treatment for early prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 21(20):3777–3784
32.
Hawe P, Degeling D, Hall J (1990) Evaluating health promotion: a health worker’s guide. Maclennan + Petty, Sydney
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of a revised instrument to assess the needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer
Authors
Janine M. Duke
Carla J. Treloar
Julie E. Byles
Publication date
01-11-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 11/2005
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0808-5

Other articles of this Issue 11/2005

Supportive Care in Cancer 11/2005 Go to the issue

Original Article

The use of dietary supplements in a community hospital comprehensive cancer center: implications for conventional cancer care

Supportive Care International

Assessment and treatment of symptoms among Italian medical oncologists

Original Article

Awareness of diagnosis, and information-seeking behavior of hospitalized cancer patients in Greece

Review Article

Neoplastic fever: a neglected paraneoplastic syndrome

Review Article

Buprenorphine in cancer pain

Society News

Society News November 2005
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits