Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2018 | Review Article

A systematic review of the measurement properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer In-patient Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32

Authors: Koen I. Neijenhuijs, Femke Jansen, Neil K. Aaronson, Anne Brédart, Mogens Groenvold, Bernhard Holzner, Caroline B. Terwee, Pim Cuijpers, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 8/2018

Abstract

Purpose

The EORTC IN-PATSAT32 is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess cancer patients’ satisfaction with in-patient health care. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the initial good measurement properties of the IN-PATSAT32 are confirmed in new studies.

Methods

Within the scope of a larger systematic review study (Prospero ID 42017057237), a systematic search was performed of Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies that investigated measurement properties of the IN-PATSAT32 up to July 2017. Study quality was assessed, data were extracted, and synthesized according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.

Results

Nine studies were included in this review. The evidence on reliability and construct validity were rated as sufficient and of the quality of the evidence as moderate. The evidence on structural validity was rated as insufficient and of low quality. The evidence on internal consistency was indeterminate. Measurement error, responsiveness, criterion validity, and cross-cultural validity were not reported in the included studies. Measurement error could be calculated for two studies and was judged indeterminate.

Conclusion

In summary, the IN-PATSAT32 performs as expected with respect to reliability and construct validity. No firm conclusions can be made yet whether the IN-PATSAT32 also performs as well with respect to structural validity and internal consistency. Further research on these measurement properties of the PROM is therefore needed as well as on measurement error, responsiveness, criterion validity, and cross-cultural validity. For future studies, it is recommended to take the COSMIN methodology into account.

Available only for authorised users

Browne K, Roseman D, Shaller D, Edgman-Levitan S (2010) Analysis & commentary: measuring patient experience as a strategy for improving primary care. Health Aff 29(5):921–925. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0238 CrossRef

Brédart A, Bottomley A (2002) Treatment satisfaction as an outcome measure in cancer clinical treatment trials. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2:597–606. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2.6.597 CrossRefPubMed

Ware E, Snyder M, Wright R, Davies A (1983) Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann 6:247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(83)90005-8 CrossRefPubMed

Oberst MT (1984) Patients’ Perceptions of care. Cancer 53:2366–2375CrossRefPubMed

Baker R (1990) Development of a questionnaire to assess patients’ satisfaction with consultations in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 40:487–490PubMedPubMedCentral

Rubin H, Ware H, Nelson E, Meterko M (1990) The patient judgments of hospital quality (PJHQ) questionnaire. Med Care 28:S17–S18CrossRefPubMed

Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD (2003) Psychometric properties of the consumer assessment of health plans study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res 38:1509–1528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00190.x CrossRefPubMed

Brédart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby JM, Conroy T, Coens C, D’Haese S et al (2005) An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Eur J Cancer 41:2120–2131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.04.041 CrossRefPubMed

Bjordal K, De Graeff A, Fayers PM, Hammerlid E, Van Pottelsberghe C, Curran D et al (2000) A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Eur J Cancer 36:1796–1807. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00186-6 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL et al (2012) COSMIN checklist manual. Manual. VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam

12.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21:651–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW et al (2018) COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 CrossRef

14.

Neijenhuijs KI, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Cuijpers P, van der Hout A, Melissant HC, de Wit M, Jansen F, Veeger M (2017) Validity and reliability of patient reported outcomes measuring quality of life in cancer patients. PROSPERO:CRD42017057237. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42017057237. Accessed 27 Feb 2018

15.

van der Hout A, van Uden-Kraan CF, Witte BI, Veerle Coupé VMH, Jansen F, Leemans CR et al (2017) Efficacy, cost-utility, and reach of an eHealth self-management application ‘Oncokompas’ that facilitates cancer survivors to obtain optimal supportive care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 18:228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1952-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Lubberding S, van Uden-Kraan CF, Te Velde EA, Cuijpers P, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM (2015) Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors. J Clin Nurs 24:1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12753 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Jansen F, van Uden-Kraan CF, Van Zwieten V, Witte BI, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM (2015) Cancer survivors’ perceived need for supportive care and their attitude towards self-management and eHealth. Support Care Cancer 23:1679–1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2514-7 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Duman-Lubberding S, van Uden-Kraan CF, Jansen F, Witte BI, van der Velden LA, Lacko M et al (2016) Feasibility of an eHealth application “OncoKompas” to improve personalized survivorship cancer care. Support Care Cancer 24:2163–2171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-3004-2 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, De Vet HCW (2009) Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 18:1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Hjörleifsdóttir E, Hallberg IR, Gunnarsdóttir ED (2010) Satisfaction with care in oncology outpatient clinics: psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic EORTC IN-PATSAT32 version. J Clin Nurs 19:1784–1794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03095.x CrossRefPubMed

21.

Pishkuhi MA, Salmaniyan S, Nedjat S, Zendedel K, Lari MA (2014) Psychometric properties of the Persian version of satisfaction with care EORTC-in-patsat32 questionnaire among Iranian cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15:10121–10128. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.23.10121 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Arraras JI, Vera R, Martínez M, Hernández B, Laínez N, Rico M, Vila M, Chicata V, Asín G (2009) The EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire: EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Clin Transl Oncol 11:237–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-009-0346-6 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Zhang J, Xie S, Liu J, Sun W, Guo H, Hu Y et al (2014) Validation of EORTC IN-PATSAT32 for Chinese patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence 8:1285–1292. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s67111 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Zhang L, Dai Z, Cheng S, Xie S, Woo SML, Luo Z, Wu J, Gao T, Liu J, Zhang K, Zhang J, Jia X, Miller AR, Wang C (2015) Validation of EORTC IN-PATSAT32 for Chinese cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 23:2721–2730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2636-6 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Obtel M, Serhier Z, Bendahhou K (2017) Validation of EORTC IN-PATSAT 32 in Morocco: Methods and Processes. Asian-Pac J 18:1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.5.1403 CrossRef

26.

Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 CrossRef

27.

Bland M, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 CrossRef

28.

Bland JM, Altman DG (2007) Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 17:571–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543400701329422 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Asadi-lari M, Ahmadi Pishkuhi M, Almasi-Hashiani A, Safiri S, Sepidarkish M (2015) Validation study of the EORTC information questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-INFO25) in Iranian cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 23:1875–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2510-y CrossRefPubMed

30.

Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Blazeby JM, Bottomley A, Fayers PM, de Graeff A, Hammerlid E, Kaasa S, Sprangers MA, Bjorner JB, EORTC Quality of Life Group (2006) The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer 42:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.06.022 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Aboshaiqah A, Al-Saedi TSB, Abu-Al-Ruyhaylah MMM, Aloufi AA, Alharbi MO, Alharbi SSR et al (2016) Quality of life and satisfaction with care among palliative cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Palliat Support Care 14:621–627. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951516000432 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Arraras JI, Greimel E, Sezer O, Chie WC, Bergenmar M, Costantini A, Young T, Vlasic KK, Velikova G (2010) An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: an instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 46:2726–2738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.06.118 CrossRefPubMed

Title: A systematic review of the measurement properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer In-patient Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32
Authors: Koen I. Neijenhuijs
Femke Jansen
Neil K. Aaronson
Anne Brédart
Mogens Groenvold
Bernhard Holzner
Caroline B. Terwee
Pim Cuijpers
Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw
Publication date: 01-08-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4243-9

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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Prolonged versus short infusion rates for intravenous magnesium sulfate administration in hematopoietic cell transplant patients

Management of radiation-induced mucosal necrosis with photobiomodulation therapy

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer

The effects of high-dose calcitriol and individualized exercise on bone metabolism in breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy: a phase II feasibility trial

Network analysis of drug-related problems in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies

Perception of need for nutritional support in advanced cancer patients with cachexia: a survey in palliative care settings

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer