Penny Wright1, Adam B Smith, Ada Keding, Galina Velikova. 1. Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. e.p.wright@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: To develop subscales for clinical use of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI) with score interpretation guidance for use in routine oncology practice. BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are used increasingly in cancer care but successful implementation is dependent on a combination of sound psychometrics, guidance on clinical meaning and good clinical judgement. The SDI, a 21-item instrument (SDI-21) developed for use in cancer care, demonstrated good psychometric properties. Rasch analysis of the SDI resulted in a 16-item interval scale of Social Distress (SD-16), which allowed for establishment of some clinical utility guidance but further work was required to optimise meaningful interpretation in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Data were pooled from three studies investigating psychometrics and clinical utility of the SDI-21. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Common factor analysis was undertaken on SD-16 items. Subscales were derived from the resulting factors and calculated by summing the scores of associated items. Subscale reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α. RESULTS: There were 652 participants. A three-factor model explaining 53.3% of the variance was extracted forming the basis of the subscales: Everyday living, Money matters and Self and others. Subscale reliability was good. In a clinical setting, a 2-point change in subscale score could be interpreted as a clinically meaningful difference. CONCLUSION: The development of three subscales and clinically significant difference scores for the SD-16, combined with the previously developed cut-off points, improves the clinical utility of the SDI-21 when assessing social issues in oncology care.
AIMS: To develop subscales for clinical use of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI) with score interpretation guidance for use in routine oncology practice. BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures are used increasingly in cancer care but successful implementation is dependent on a combination of sound psychometrics, guidance on clinical meaning and good clinical judgement. The SDI, a 21-item instrument (SDI-21) developed for use in cancer care, demonstrated good psychometric properties. Rasch analysis of the SDI resulted in a 16-item interval scale of Social Distress (SD-16), which allowed for establishment of some clinical utility guidance but further work was required to optimise meaningful interpretation in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Data were pooled from three studies investigating psychometrics and clinical utility of the SDI-21. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Common factor analysis was undertaken on SD-16 items. Subscales were derived from the resulting factors and calculated by summing the scores of associated items. Subscale reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α. RESULTS: There were 652 participants. A three-factor model explaining 53.3% of the variance was extracted forming the basis of the subscales: Everyday living, Money matters and Self and others. Subscale reliability was good. In a clinical setting, a 2-point change in subscale score could be interpreted as a clinically meaningful difference. CONCLUSION: The development of three subscales and clinically significant difference scores for the SD-16, combined with the previously developed cut-off points, improves the clinical utility of the SDI-21 when assessing social issues in oncology care.
Authors: Veenoo Agarwal; Nadia Corsini; Marion C Eckert; Greg Sharplin; Imogen Ramsey; Kate Gunn; Michael K Fitzgerald; Bogda Koczwara Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: N Corsini; J Fish; I Ramsey; G Sharplin; I Flight; R Damarell; B Wiggins; C Wilson; D Roder; M Eckert Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Naheed Hanif; Nimarta Dharni; Adam Smith; Sangeeta Chattoo; Galina Velikova; Chris Bradley; Dan Stark; Penny Wright Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Laura Ashley; Helen Jones; David Forman; Alex Newsham; Julia Brown; Amy Downing; Galina Velikova; Penny Wright Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Adam W Glaser; Lorna K Fraser; Jessica Corner; Richard Feltbower; Eva J A Morris; Greg Hartwell; Mike Richards; Richard Wagland Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 2.692