Validation Study of the EORTC Information Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-INFO25) in Iranian Cancer Patients

Overview

Journal Support Care Cancer

Specialties Critical Care
Oncology

Date 2014 Dec 6

PMID 25475735

Citations 3

Authors

Mohsen Asadi-Lari

Mahin Ahmadi Pishkuhi

Amir Almasi-Hashiani

Saeid Safiri

Mahdi Sepidarkish

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Developing a tool for measuring patient's needs is a vital step in the process of cancer treatment and research. In recent years, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) made a questionnaire to measure cancer patients' received information. Since validity and reliability of any instrument should be evaluated in the new environment and culture, the aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 in Iranian cancer patients.

Materials And Methods: One hundred seventy-three patients with different stages of cancer filled questionnaire EORTC QLQ-INFO25, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Twenty-five patients answered the questionnaire twice at an interval of 2 weeks. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire was measured by Cronbach's alpha, interclass correlation, test retest, inter-rater agreement (IRA), and exploratory factorial analyses.

Results: Using a conservative approach, the IRA for the overall relevancy and clarity of the tool was 87/86% and 83.33%, respectively. Overall appropriateness and clarity were 94.13 and 91.87%, respectively. Overall integrity of the instrument was determined to be 85%. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all domains and total inventory were top 70 and 90%, respectively. Interclass correlation index ranges between 0.708 and 0.965. Exploratory factorial analyses demonstrate six fields suitable for instrument. Correlation between areas of the questionnaires EORTC QLQ-INFO25 and EORTC in-Patsat32 represents the convergent validity of the questionnaire. Also, results show a standard divergent validity in all domains of the questionnaire (Rho <0.3). Low correlation between the areas of the questionnaires EORTC QLQ-INFO25 and EORTC QLQ-C30 (<0.3) demonstrates the divergence validity of the questionnaire.

Conclusion: The results showed that Persian version of the questionnaire EORTC QLQ-INFO25 is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the perception of information in cancer patients.

Citing Articles

Cancer patient satisfaction regarding the quality of information received: psychometric validity of EORTC QLQ-INFO25.

Bezerra M, De Domenico E Rev Bras Enferm. 2024; 77(1):e20230358.

PMID: 38716910 PMC: 11067937. DOI: 10.1590/0034-7167-2023-0358.

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.

Neijenhuijs K, Jansen F, Aaronson N, Bredart A, Groenvold M, Holzner B Support Care Cancer. 2018; 26(8):2551-2560.

PMID: 29732482 PMC: 6018571. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4243-9.

Tehran Survey of Potential Risk Factors for Multiple Births.

Omani Samani R, Almasi-Hashiani A, Vesali S, Shokri F, Cheraghi R, Torkestani F Int J Fertil Steril. 2017; 11(3):220-225.

PMID: 28868845 PMC: 5582151. DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2017.4700.

References

Arraras J, Greimel E, Sezer O, Chie W, Bergenmar M, Costantini A . An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: an instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46(15):2726-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.06.118. View

Meredith C, Symonds P, Webster L, Lamont D, Pyper E, Gillis C . Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients' views. BMJ. 1996; 313(7059):724-6. PMC: 2352093. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7059.724. View

Hilton A, Skrutkowski M . Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nurs. 2002; 25(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1097/00002820-200202000-00001. View

Halkett G, Kristjanson L . Validity and reliability testing of two instruments to measure breast cancer patients' concerns and information needs relating to radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2007; 2:43. PMC: 2211484. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-2-43. View

Deyo R, Diehr P, Patrick D . Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991; 12(4 Suppl):142S-158S. DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(05)80019-4. View

Galloway S, Graydon J, Harrison D, West P, Blair A . Informational needs of women with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer: development and initial testing of a tool. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 25(6):1175-83. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.19970251175.x. View

Ware Jr J, Davies A . Behavioral consequences of consumer dissatisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1982; 6(3-4):291-7. DOI: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90009-5. View

Templeton H, Coates V . Informational needs of men with prostate cancer on hormonal manipulation therapy. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 49(3):243-56. DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00181-7. View

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

10.

Bredart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby J, Conroy T, Coens C, Dhaese S . An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41(14):2120-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.04.041. View

11.

Pishkuhi M, Salmaniyan S, Nedjat S, Zendedel K, Asadi Lari M . Psychometric properties of the Persian version of satisfaction with care EORTC-in-patsat32 questionnaire among Iranian cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 15(23):10121-8. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.23.10121. View

12.

Okamura H, Fukui S, Nagasaka Y, Koike M, Uchitomi Y . Psychoeducational intervention for patients with primary breast cancer and patient satisfaction with information: an exploratory analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003; 80(3):331-8. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024964009693. View

13.

Rainey L . Effects of preparatory patient education for radiation oncology patients. Cancer. 1985; 56(5):1056-61. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850901)56:5<1056::aid-cncr2820560516>3.0.co;2-z. View

14.

Streiner D, Norman G . "Precision" and "accuracy": two terms that are neither. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(4):327-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.005. View

15.

Montazeri A, Harirchi I, Vahdani M, Khaleghi F, Jarvandi S, Ebrahimi M . The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Support Care Cancer. 1999; 7(6):400-6. DOI: 10.1007/s005200050300. View

16.

Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Burton L, Cook P, Boyes A . Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Supportive Care Review Group. Cancer. 2000; 88(1):217-25. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000101)88:1<217::aid-cncr29>3.0.co;2-y. View

17.

Brandt B . Informational needs and selected variables in patients receiving brachytherapy. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1991; 18(7):1221-7; discussion 1227-9. View

18.

Mallinger J, Griggs J, Shields C . Patient-centered care and breast cancer survivors' satisfaction with information. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 57(3):342-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.09.009. View

19.

Tattersall M, Butow P, Griffin A, Dunn S . The take-home message: patients prefer consultation audiotapes to summary letters. J Clin Oncol. 1994; 12(6):1305-11. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.6.1305. View

20.

Rubin H, Gandek B, Rogers W, Kosinski M, McHorney C, Ware Jr J . Patients' ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1993; 270(7):835-40. View