PURPOSE: To develop and validate a new functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measure of satisfaction with treatment for chronic illnesses such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. METHODS: To define domains and generate items, a literature review informed creation of semi-structured interview guides for patients and an international expert panel of clinicians and researchers. Patients and experts also rated 15 areas of satisfaction for relevance. The final list of items underwent further refinement by the original expert panel and a new group of clinical experts. Items were tested in four studies (primarily lung cancer) and data were pooled for analysis. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and item response theory modeling were conducted to evaluate dimensionality. Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability were both evaluated. Validity was evaluated by correlating the FACIT subscale scores and measures of comparable concepts and by testing the scales' ability to distinguish people according to their overall treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Two instruments were created: the FACIT TS-general (G), an overall evaluation of current treatment, and the FACIT TS-patient satisfaction (PS), a measure of patient satisfaction. CFA results were not optimal for a five-factor solution for PS. Internal consistency reliability met psychometric standards (≥0.70) for all PS subscales. Construct validity was established for the PS subscales: Physician Communication, Treatment Staff Communication, Technical Competence, Confidence and Trust, and Nurse Communication. CONCLUSIONS: The two instruments generated here offer a new way to assess several key dimensions of patient satisfaction with treatment, especially for people with lung cancer.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a new functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measure of satisfaction with treatment for chronic illnesses such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. METHODS: To define domains and generate items, a literature review informed creation of semi-structured interview guides for patients and an international expert panel of clinicians and researchers. Patients and experts also rated 15 areas of satisfaction for relevance. The final list of items underwent further refinement by the original expert panel and a new group of clinical experts. Items were tested in four studies (primarily lung cancer) and data were pooled for analysis. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and item response theory modeling were conducted to evaluate dimensionality. Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability were both evaluated. Validity was evaluated by correlating the FACIT subscale scores and measures of comparable concepts and by testing the scales' ability to distinguish people according to their overall treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Two instruments were created: the FACIT TS-general (G), an overall evaluation of current treatment, and the FACIT TS-patient satisfaction (PS), a measure of patient satisfaction. CFA results were not optimal for a five-factor solution for PS. Internal consistency reliability met psychometric standards (≥0.70) for all PS subscales. Construct validity was established for the PS subscales: Physician Communication, Treatment Staff Communication, Technical Competence, Confidence and Trust, and Nurse Communication. CONCLUSIONS: The two instruments generated here offer a new way to assess several key dimensions of patient satisfaction with treatment, especially for people with lung cancer.
Authors: H Wessels; A de Graeff; G Groenewegen; K Wynia; M de Heus; J B H Vos; P Tjia; C L J J Kruitwagen; S C C M Teunissen; Emile E Voest Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; William C Hunt; Frank D Gilliland; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Carolyn E Schwartz; Leah Goldstein; Iliana Garcia; Daniel F Storfer; Yuelin Li; Jie Zhang; Bernard H Bochner; Bruce D Rapkin Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Emily J Bacalao; George J Greene; Jennifer L Beaumont; Amy Eisenstein; Azra Muftic; Arthur M Mandelin; David Cella; Eric M Ruderman Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Matthew B Clements; Thomas M Atkinson; Guido M Dalbagni; Yuelin Li; Andrew J Vickers; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Daniel S Sjoberg; Amy L Tin; Bruce D Rapkin; Bernard H Bochner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jamie M Jacobs; Molly E Ream; Nicole Pensak; Lauren E Nisotel; Joel N Fishbein; James J MacDonald; Joanne Buzaglo; Inga T Lennes; Steven A Safren; William F Pirl; Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jazmín E Hernández-Marín; Oscar Galindo-Vázquez; Rosario Costas-Muñíz; Paula Cabrera-Galeana; M Del Rosario Caballero-Tinoco; José L Aguilar-Ponce; Abel Lerma Journal: Gac Med Mex Date: 2020 Impact factor: 0.302
Authors: Toni Zhong; Whitney L Quong; Terry Cheng; Isabel Kerrebijn; Kate Butler; Stefan O P Hofer; Anne C O'Neill; Tulin D Cil; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Maria Isabel Castillo; Emily Larsen; Marie Cooke; Nicole M Marsh; Marianne C Wallis; Julie Finucane; Peter Brown; Gabor Mihala; Peter J Carr; Joshua Byrnes; Rachel Walker; Prudence Cable; Li Zhang; Candi Sear; Gavin Jackson; Anna Rowsome; Alison Ryan; Julie C Humphries; Susan Sivyer; Kathy Flanigan; Claire M Rickard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 2.692