BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important outcome measure of quality of cancer care and 1 of the 4 core study outcomes of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program to reduce race/ethnicity-based disparities in cancer care. There is no existing patient satisfaction measure that spans the spectrum of cancer-related care. The objective of this study was to develop a Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care measure that is relevant to patients receiving diagnostic/therapeutic cancer-related care. METHODS: The authors developed a conceptual framework, an operational definition of Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care, and an item pool based on literature review, expert feedback, group discussion, and consensus. The 35-item Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care measure was administered to 891 participants from the multisite NCI-sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted for latent structure analysis. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach coefficient alpha (α). Divergent analysis was performed using correlation analyses between the Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy-Cancer, and demographic variables. RESULTS: The PCA revealed a 1-dimensional measure with items forming a coherent set explaining 62% of the variance in patient satisfaction. Reliability assessment revealed high internal consistency (α ranging from 0.95 to 0.96). The Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care demonstrated good face validity, convergent validity, and divergent validity, as indicated by moderate correlations with subscales of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy-Cancer (all P < .01) and nonsignificant correlations with age, primary language, marital status, and scores on the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Long Form (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care is a valid tool for assessing satisfaction with cancer-related care for this sample.
BACKGROUND:Patient satisfaction is an important outcome measure of quality of cancer care and 1 of the 4 core study outcomes of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program to reduce race/ethnicity-based disparities in cancer care. There is no existing patient satisfaction measure that spans the spectrum of cancer-related care. The objective of this study was to develop a Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care measure that is relevant to patients receiving diagnostic/therapeutic cancer-related care. METHODS: The authors developed a conceptual framework, an operational definition of Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care, and an item pool based on literature review, expert feedback, group discussion, and consensus. The 35-item Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care measure was administered to 891 participants from the multisite NCI-sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted for latent structure analysis. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach coefficient alpha (α). Divergent analysis was performed using correlation analyses between the Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy-Cancer, and demographic variables. RESULTS: The PCA revealed a 1-dimensional measure with items forming a coherent set explaining 62% of the variance in patient satisfaction. Reliability assessment revealed high internal consistency (α ranging from 0.95 to 0.96). The Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care demonstrated good face validity, convergent validity, and divergent validity, as indicated by moderate correlations with subscales of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy-Cancer (all P < .01) and nonsignificant correlations with age, primary language, marital status, and scores on the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Long Form (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care is a valid tool for assessing satisfaction with cancer-related care for this sample.
Authors: Lucy B Spalluto; Carolyn M Audet; Velma McBride Murry; Claudia P Barajas; Katina R Beard; Thoris T Campbell; Debbie Thomas; Maureen Sanderson; Chang Yu; Robert S Dittus; Christianne L Roumie; Consuelo H Wilkins; Martha J Shrubsole Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Pascal Jean-Pierre; Kevin Fiscella; Paul C Winters; Electra Paskett; Kristen Wells; Tracy Battaglia Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Marina J Corines; Jada G Hamilton; Emily Glogowski; Chris A Anrig; Rachael Goldberg; Kate Niehaus; Erin Salo-Mullen; Megan Harlan; Margaret R Sheehan; Magan Trottier; Asad Ahsraf; Christina Tran; Lauren Jacobs; Rohini Rau-Murthy; Anne G Lincoln; Mark E Robson; Jose G Guillem; Arnold J Markowitz; Kenneth Offit; Zsofia K Stadler Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Pascal Jean-Pierre; Paul C Winters; Jack A Clark; Victoria Warren-Mears; Kristen J Wells; Douglas M Post; Nancy LaVerda; Mary Ann Van Duyn; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Adam C Carle; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Paul Winters; Patricia Valverde; Kristen Wells; Melissa Simon; Peter Raich; Steven Patierno; Mira Katz; Karen M Freund; Donald Dudley; Kevin Fiscella Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Patricia I Moreno; Amelie G Ramirez; Sandra L San Miguel-Majors; Leopoldo Castillo; Rina S Fox; Kipling J Gallion; Edgar Munoz; Ryne Estabrook; Arely Perez; Thomas Lad; Courtney Hollowell; Frank J Penedo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Patricia I Moreno; Amelie G Ramirez; Sandra L San Miguel-Majors; Rina S Fox; Leopoldo Castillo; Kipling J Gallion; Edgar Munoz; Ryne Estabrook; Arely Perez; Thomas Lad; Courtney Hollowell; Frank J Penedo Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860