Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2014

01-09-2014 | Original Article

Assessing patient–caregiver communication in cancer—a psychometric validation of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) in a German sample

Authors: Markus W. Haun, Halina Sklenarova, Eva C. Winkler, Johannes Huber, Michael Thomas, Laura A. Siminoff, Michael Woll, Anette Brechtel, Wolfgang Herzog, Mechthild Hartmann

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The recently introduced Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) measures congruence in patient–caregiver communication and was initially validated in lung cancer patients. Contributing to a greater proportion of the variance in the conflict scores, primary caregivers were hypothesized to experience greater stress. For a detailed understanding of conflicting communication patterns of cancer-affected families, our study aimed for psychometric validation of the CCAT-PF in a sample covering heterogeneous tumor entities.

Methods

Subsequent to a cross-sectional survey of 189 pairs of cancer patients (31 % gastrointestinal, 34 % lung, and 35 % urological) and their caregivers’ exploratory factor analysis with principal component condensation and varimax rotation was conducted (response rate, 74.2 %). Reliability and construct validity were assessed calculating Cronbach’s α and Pearson correlation coefficients for CCAT-P and CCAT-F scales and related constructs, respectively.

Results

Cancer-related communication according to the CCAT-PF can be subdivided into four factors including the scales Disclosure, Limitation of treatment, Family involvement in treatment decisions, and Continuing treatment. Reliability ranged from α = .51–.68. The Disclosure scale, describing poor cancer-related communication of the patient, was correlated with patient’s distress (QSC-R10: r = .30, p < .0001), unmet needs in several areas (SCNS-SF-34: r = .25–.32, p < .001), and negatively with social/family well-being (FACT: r = −0.31, p < .0001). Higher scores on the scale were significantly associated with considerable decrements in emotional well-being especially for caregivers perceiving patients’ disclosure as problematic.

Conclusions

The Disclosure scale originating from the CCAT-PF emerged as a short, valid, and reliable stand-alone instrument for identifying conflicting communication in patient–caregiver–dyads at risk.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lewis FM (2009) The family’s “stuck points” in adjusting to cancer. In: Holland JC, Breitbart WS, Jacobsen PB (eds) Psycho-Oncology. Oxford University, New York, pp 511–515 Lewis FM (2009) The family’s “stuck points” in adjusting to cancer. In: Holland JC, Breitbart WS, Jacobsen PB (eds) Psycho-Oncology. Oxford University, New York, pp 511–515
2.
go back to reference Manne SL et al (1999) Spousal negative responses to cancer patients: the role of social restriction, spouse mood, and relationship satisfaction. J Consult Clin Psychol 67(3):352–361PubMedCrossRef Manne SL et al (1999) Spousal negative responses to cancer patients: the role of social restriction, spouse mood, and relationship satisfaction. J Consult Clin Psychol 67(3):352–361PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Burns CM et al (2007) Fluctuating awareness of treatment goals among patients and their caregivers: a longitudinal study of a dynamic process. Support Care Cancer 15(2):187–196PubMedCrossRef Burns CM et al (2007) Fluctuating awareness of treatment goals among patients and their caregivers: a longitudinal study of a dynamic process. Support Care Cancer 15(2):187–196PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Siminoff LA et al (2008) The Cancer Communication Assessment Tool for Patients and Families (CCAT-PF): a new measure. Psychooncology 17(12):1216–1224PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Siminoff LA et al (2008) The Cancer Communication Assessment Tool for Patients and Families (CCAT-PF): a new measure. Psychooncology 17(12):1216–1224PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Siminoff LA et al (2006) Measuring discord in treatment decision-making; progress toward development of a cancer communication and decision-making assessment tool. Psychooncology 15:528–540PubMedCrossRef Siminoff LA et al (2006) Measuring discord in treatment decision-making; progress toward development of a cancer communication and decision-making assessment tool. Psychooncology 15:528–540PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bonett DG (2002) Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. J Educ Behav Stat 27(4):335–340CrossRef Bonett DG (2002) Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. J Educ Behav Stat 27(4):335–340CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Escobar Pinzon LC et al (2010) End-of-life care in Germany: study design, methods and first results of the EPACS study (Establishment of Hospice and Palliative Care Services in Germany). BMC Palliat Care 9:16PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Escobar Pinzon LC et al (2010) End-of-life care in Germany: study design, methods and first results of the EPACS study (Establishment of Hospice and Palliative Care Services in Germany). BMC Palliat Care 9:16PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Book K et al (2011) Distress screening in oncology—evaluation of the Questionnaire on Distress in Cancer Patients—Short Form (QSC-R10) in a German Sample. Psychooncology 20(3):287–293PubMedCrossRef Book K et al (2011) Distress screening in oncology—evaluation of the Questionnaire on Distress in Cancer Patients—Short Form (QSC-R10) in a German Sample. Psychooncology 20(3):287–293PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kroenke K et al (2009) An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 50(6):613–621PubMed Kroenke K et al (2009) An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 50(6):613–621PubMed
10.
go back to reference Girgis A, Lambert S, Lecathelinais C (2011) The supportive care needs survey for partners and caregivers of cancer survivors: development and psychometric evaluation. Psychooncology 20(4):387–393PubMedCrossRef Girgis A, Lambert S, Lecathelinais C (2011) The supportive care needs survey for partners and caregivers of cancer survivors: development and psychometric evaluation. Psychooncology 20(4):387–393PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Cella DF et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579PubMed Cella DF et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579PubMed
12.
go back to reference Cella DF et al (1995) Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer 12(3):199–220PubMedCrossRef Cella DF et al (1995) Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer 12(3):199–220PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
15.
go back to reference Fife BL et al (2013) Partner interdependence and coping with life-threatening illness: the impact on dyadic adjustment. J Fam Psychol 27(5):702–711PubMedCrossRef Fife BL et al (2013) Partner interdependence and coping with life-threatening illness: the impact on dyadic adjustment. J Fam Psychol 27(5):702–711PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kornblith AB et al (2006) Cancer-related communication between female patients and male partners scale: a pilot study. Psychooncology 15(9):780–794PubMedCrossRef Kornblith AB et al (2006) Cancer-related communication between female patients and male partners scale: a pilot study. Psychooncology 15(9):780–794PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lo C et al (2013) Couples facing advanced cancer: examination of an interdependent relational system. Psychooncology 22(10):2283–2290 Lo C et al (2013) Couples facing advanced cancer: examination of an interdependent relational system. Psychooncology 22(10):2283–2290
18.
go back to reference Northouse LL et al (2013) Randomized clinical trial of a brief and extensive dyadic intervention for advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers. Psychooncology 22(3):555–563PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Northouse LL et al (2013) Randomized clinical trial of a brief and extensive dyadic intervention for advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers. Psychooncology 22(3):555–563PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessing patient–caregiver communication in cancer—a psychometric validation of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) in a German sample
Authors
Markus W. Haun
Halina Sklenarova
Eva C. Winkler
Johannes Huber
Michael Thomas
Laura A. Siminoff
Michael Woll
Anette Brechtel
Wolfgang Herzog
Mechthild Hartmann
Publication date
01-09-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2014
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2241-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2014

Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2014 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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