OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of a Dutch adaptation of an originally Australian instrument measuring the psychological impact of breast cancer screening. METHODS: The three subscales (emotional, physical, social) of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) underwent formal linguistic and cultural translation. A total of 524 women under intensive surveillance because of increased breast cancer risk were asked to complete the questionnaire at 2 months prior to screening, at the day of the screening visit preceding the screening, and 1-4 weeks after screening. Acceptability, score distribution, internal consistency, scale structure, responsiveness to change and construct validity were analysed. RESULTS: Response rates were high (98-94%) and there were very few missing answers and non-unique answers. All scales had Cronbach's alphas > 0.70. The physical and social subscale showed ceiling effects. The item-own scale correlations were only slightly higher than the corresponding item-other scale correlations. Factor analysis showed that the assumed three separate subscales were replicated in our study. Pre- and post-screening effect sizes for the emotional scale were larger than for the other two scales. All PCQ scales correlated with the scales of two other psychological measures (p <or= 0.01). The emotional scale and the total PCQ score were able to differentiate between subgroups varying in affective risk perception (p <or= 0.01). CONCLUSION: The Dutch PCQ is useful in measuring psychological impact among women under intensive surveillance because of high breast cancer risk.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of a Dutch adaptation of an originally Australian instrument measuring the psychological impact of breast cancer screening. METHODS: The three subscales (emotional, physical, social) of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) underwent formal linguistic and cultural translation. A total of 524 women under intensive surveillance because of increased breast cancer risk were asked to complete the questionnaire at 2 months prior to screening, at the day of the screening visit preceding the screening, and 1-4 weeks after screening. Acceptability, score distribution, internal consistency, scale structure, responsiveness to change and construct validity were analysed. RESULTS: Response rates were high (98-94%) and there were very few missing answers and non-unique answers. All scales had Cronbach's alphas > 0.70. The physical and social subscale showed ceiling effects. The item-own scale correlations were only slightly higher than the corresponding item-other scale correlations. Factor analysis showed that the assumed three separate subscales were replicated in our study. Pre- and post-screening effect sizes for the emotional scale were larger than for the other two scales. All PCQ scales correlated with the scales of two other psychological measures (p <or= 0.01). The emotional scale and the total PCQ score were able to differentiate between subgroups varying in affective risk perception (p <or= 0.01). CONCLUSION: The Dutch PCQ is useful in measuring psychological impact among women under intensive surveillance because of high breast cancer risk.
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maaike J Denters; Marije Deutekom; Paul Fockens; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: A Kapidzic; I J Korfage; L van Dam; A H C van Roon; J C I Y Reijerink; A G Zauber; M van Ballegooijen; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Patricia Markham Risica; Natalie H Matthews; Laura Dionne; Jennifer Mello; Laura K Ferris; Melissa Saul; Alan C Geller; Francis Solano; John M Kirkwood; Martin A Weinstock Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-04-17
Authors: Nina C A Vermeer; Maxime J M van der Valk; Heleen S Snijders; Hans F A Vasen; Arthur Gerritsen van der Hoop; Onno R Guicherit; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Anne M Stiggelbout; Koen C M J Peeters Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 3.894