OBJECTIVE: To validate a satisfaction measure for use in longitudinal, prospective studies of patient care. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer (n = 228) who were enrolled in CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) completed a self-administered questionnaire that included a health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction measure. A subset of patients completed the questionnaire again within 30 days. METHODS: The satisfaction measure contained 6 individual subscales: overall satisfaction with care, contact with providers, confidence in providers, communication skills, humaneness, and a summary scale. Six items surveyed patients' willingness to participate in decision making (participatory style), and these were averaged into a single score. Variability, reliability, stability, and validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Responses to the items varied substantially. The overall satisfaction scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.82) and moderate test-retest reliability (0.62), and it could discriminate between groups of individuals expected to differ with regard to satisfaction (by age and disease stage). Subscale internal consistency reliability (0.37-0.54) and stability (0.38-0.63) were weaker, suggesting that only a single scale should be reported. The participatory scale performed poorly and could not be recommended for future use. CONCLUSION: The overall satisfaction measure developed for this study demonstrated good reliability and validity and should be useful in other population-based studies in conjunction with other outcome measures.
OBJECTIVE: To validate a satisfaction measure for use in longitudinal, prospective studies of patient care. STUDY DESIGN:Patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer (n = 228) who were enrolled in CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) completed a self-administered questionnaire that included a health-related quality-of-life and satisfaction measure. A subset of patients completed the questionnaire again within 30 days. METHODS: The satisfaction measure contained 6 individual subscales: overall satisfaction with care, contact with providers, confidence in providers, communication skills, humaneness, and a summary scale. Six items surveyed patients' willingness to participate in decision making (participatory style), and these were averaged into a single score. Variability, reliability, stability, and validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Responses to the items varied substantially. The overall satisfaction scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.82) and moderate test-retest reliability (0.62), and it could discriminate between groups of individuals expected to differ with regard to satisfaction (by age and disease stage). Subscale internal consistency reliability (0.37-0.54) and stability (0.38-0.63) were weaker, suggesting that only a single scale should be reported. The participatory scale performed poorly and could not be recommended for future use. CONCLUSION: The overall satisfaction measure developed for this study demonstrated good reliability and validity and should be useful in other population-based studies in conjunction with other outcome measures.
Authors: Lei Zhang; Zhenbo Dai; Siying Cheng; Shumin Xie; Stephanie Mu-Lian Woo; Zhiqin Luo; Jinglian Wu; Tianwen Gao; Jiahao Liu; Kai Zhang; Jing Zhang; Xinyu Jia; Adam R Miller; Changli Wang Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kimberly A Wildes; Alexander R Miller; Sandra San Miguel de Majors; Pamela M Otto; Amelie G Ramirez Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Juan Ignacio Arraras; Jose Juan Illarramendi; Antonio Viudez; Maria Jose Lecumberri; Susana de la Cruz; Berta Hernandez; Uxue Zarandona; Anne Bredart; Maite Martinez; Esteban Salgado; Nuria Lainez; Ruth Vera Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Thomas J Guzzo; Janet E Cowan; Sara J Knight; Peter R Carroll; David F Penson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ronald C Chen; Peter Chang; Richard J Vetter; Himansu Lukka; William A Stokes; Martin G Sanda; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Bryce B Reeve; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506