PURPOSE: To evaluate caregivers' experience of oncology services for ambulatory patients and to develop a short instrument (FAMCARE-6) suitable for computerised administration in the clinical setting. METHODS: A sample of 234 caregivers recruited from 388 ambulatory oncology patients completed a computerised version of the 20-item family satisfaction with advanced cancer care (FAMCARE) instrument, which was originally developed for use in palliative care settings. RESULTS: Caregivers reported generally high satisfaction with all aspects of ambulatory oncology services: overall score; mean, 3.96 (SD, 0.67); information giving, 3.88 (0.78); physical patient care, 4.00 (0.71); availability of care, 3.89 (0.77); and psychosocial care, 4.05 (0.72), from a possible score of 5. Factor analyses identified a single factor structure; the items were reduced to six (FAMCARE-6), which yielded a scale with adequate psychometric properties (completion rates over 90% for every item, correlation of 0.7 or above with the factor identified in the individual item factor analysis, and internal reliability of α = 0.85). The overall mean score was 3.91 (SD, 0.73) for the FAMCARE-6. CONCLUSIONS: FAMCARE-6 can be used to assess caregiver satisfaction with ambulatory oncology services and may be suitable to be included as part of a computerised screening system for the psychological care of oncology patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate caregivers' experience of oncology services for ambulatory patients and to develop a short instrument (FAMCARE-6) suitable for computerised administration in the clinical setting. METHODS: A sample of 234 caregivers recruited from 388 ambulatory oncology patients completed a computerised version of the 20-item family satisfaction with advanced cancer care (FAMCARE) instrument, which was originally developed for use in palliative care settings. RESULTS: Caregivers reported generally high satisfaction with all aspects of ambulatory oncology services: overall score; mean, 3.96 (SD, 0.67); information giving, 3.88 (0.78); physical patient care, 4.00 (0.71); availability of care, 3.89 (0.77); and psychosocial care, 4.05 (0.72), from a possible score of 5. Factor analyses identified a single factor structure; the items were reduced to six (FAMCARE-6), which yielded a scale with adequate psychometric properties (completion rates over 90% for every item, correlation of 0.7 or above with the factor identified in the individual item factor analysis, and internal reliability of α = 0.85). The overall mean score was 3.91 (SD, 0.73) for the FAMCARE-6. CONCLUSIONS: FAMCARE-6 can be used to assess caregiver satisfaction with ambulatory oncology services and may be suitable to be included as part of a computerised screening system for the psychological care of oncology patients.
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Doug Coyle; Timothy Whelan; Jennifer Clinch; Leonard Reyno; Craig C Earle; Andrew Willan; Raymond Viola; Marjorie Coristine; Teresa Janz; Robert Glossop Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-06-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Breffni Hannon; Nadia Swami; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Natasha Leighl; Gary Rodin; Lisa W Le; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jessica Penn Lendon; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Anne M Walling; Karl A Lorenz; Oluwatobi A Oluwatola; Rebecca Anhang Price; Denise Quigley; Joan M Teno Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Katherine A Ornstein; Jeanne A Teresi; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Mildred Ramirez; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Albert L Siu Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-12-27 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jeanne A Teresi; Katherine Ornstein; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Mildred Ramirez; Albert Siu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rabih Chattat; Giovanni Ottoboni; Anita Zeneli; Maria Alejandra Berardi; Veronica Cossu; Marco Maltoni Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lilit Flöther; Barabara Pötzsch; Maria Jung; Robert Jung; Michael Bucher; André Glowka; Daniel Medenwald Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 1.817