PURPOSE: This study examines the consistency of Hong Kong Chinese breast cancer patients in prioritizing the information needs using the Chinese version of the Information Needs Questionnaire and identifies the demographics and clinical characteristics associated with inconsistency of prioritizing their information needs. METHODS: Inconsistency in prioritizing information needs was assessed by the number of circular triads in making paired comparison judgements. The chi-square test for the coefficient of agreement was used to test the hypothesis of random allocation of preferences. Stepwise multivariable regression analyses were performed to examine the association between the number of circular triads and participants' demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: 362 Hong Kong Chinese breast cancer patients completed the questionnaire in 2008. A moderate amount of agreement among the participants was reported (coefficient of agreement = 0.31). The results of the chi-square test indicated that prioritizing information needs were not done randomly. Forward multivariable regression analyses revealed that breast cancer patients who were older, had lower educational levels or were unsure about their family history of cancer, on average, committed more circular triads. However, participants with longer interval since original diagnosis of cancer, on average, made fewer circular triads. CONCLUSION: Exclusion of responses from inadequately consistent patients may be necessary when assessing the priority of information needs in breast cancer patients using the Chinese version of Information Needs Questionnaire, which could then more appropriately reflect the actual priority. Attention should be paid to patients' particular characteristics when assessing the priority of information needs by means of the instrument.
PURPOSE: This study examines the consistency of Hong Kong Chinese breast cancerpatients in prioritizing the information needs using the Chinese version of the Information Needs Questionnaire and identifies the demographics and clinical characteristics associated with inconsistency of prioritizing their information needs. METHODS: Inconsistency in prioritizing information needs was assessed by the number of circular triads in making paired comparison judgements. The chi-square test for the coefficient of agreement was used to test the hypothesis of random allocation of preferences. Stepwise multivariable regression analyses were performed to examine the association between the number of circular triads and participants' demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: 362 Hong Kong Chinese breast cancerpatients completed the questionnaire in 2008. A moderate amount of agreement among the participants was reported (coefficient of agreement = 0.31). The results of the chi-square test indicated that prioritizing information needs were not done randomly. Forward multivariable regression analyses revealed that breast cancerpatients who were older, had lower educational levels or were unsure about their family history of cancer, on average, committed more circular triads. However, participants with longer interval since original diagnosis of cancer, on average, made fewer circular triads. CONCLUSION: Exclusion of responses from inadequately consistent patients may be necessary when assessing the priority of information needs in breast cancerpatients using the Chinese version of Information Needs Questionnaire, which could then more appropriately reflect the actual priority. Attention should be paid to patients' particular characteristics when assessing the priority of information needs by means of the instrument.