PURPOSE: The Survivor Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS) is one of the only unmet needs measures that was developed and evaluated utilising a population-based sample of cancer survivors. At 89 items, the current scale is quite burdensome. The current study aimed to develop a valid and reliable short version of this survey. METHODS: A heterogeneous sample of 1,589 cancer survivors, aged 19 years or over at diagnosis, diagnosed with a histologically confirmed cancer in the previous 12 to 60 months, completed the SUNS. Using these data, we employed a combined theoretical and statistical method of reducing the number of items in the SUNS. The shortened survey was examined for construct validity, internal consistency, discriminant validity and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: Fifty-nine items were removed. Construct validity closely reflected the original structure of the SUNS. However, all items from the Emotional health and Relationships domains loaded onto one factor. Cronbach's alpha for the final four domains were 0.85 or above, demonstrating strong internal consistency. Intra-class correlations of the three domains from the original survey (Financial concerns, Information and Access and continuity of care) and shortened survey were high (>0.9). Discriminant validity illustrated the short-form SUNS' ability to discriminate between those who had recently received treatment and those who had not. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the short-form SUNS (SF-SUNS). Future studies should confirm the test-retest reliability and predictive validity of the SF-SUNS utilising large, independent, population-based samples of cancer survivors.
PURPOSE: The Survivor Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS) is one of the only unmet needs measures that was developed and evaluated utilising a population-based sample of cancer survivors. At 89 items, the current scale is quite burdensome. The current study aimed to develop a valid and reliable short version of this survey. METHODS: A heterogeneous sample of 1,589 cancer survivors, aged 19 years or over at diagnosis, diagnosed with a histologically confirmed cancer in the previous 12 to 60 months, completed the SUNS. Using these data, we employed a combined theoretical and statistical method of reducing the number of items in the SUNS. The shortened survey was examined for construct validity, internal consistency, discriminant validity and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: Fifty-nine items were removed. Construct validity closely reflected the original structure of the SUNS. However, all items from the Emotional health and Relationships domains loaded onto one factor. Cronbach's alpha for the final four domains were 0.85 or above, demonstrating strong internal consistency. Intra-class correlations of the three domains from the original survey (Financial concerns, Information and Access and continuity of care) and shortened survey were high (>0.9). Discriminant validity illustrated the short-form SUNS' ability to discriminate between those who had recently received treatment and those who had not. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the short-form SUNS (SF-SUNS). Future studies should confirm the test-retest reliability and predictive validity of the SF-SUNS utilising large, independent, population-based samples of cancer survivors.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: H Sharon Campbell; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Donna Turner; Lynda Hayward; X Sunny Wang; Jill Taylor-Brown Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-01-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer A Ligibel; Madhuri Are; K Scott Baker; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Don Dizon; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Lee Jones; Allison King; Grace H Ku; Elizabeth Kvale; Terry S Langbaum; Kristin Leonardi-Warren; Mary S McCabe; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Mary Ann Morgan; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Muhammad Raza; M Alma Rodriguez; Karen L Syrjala; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole R McMillian; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Khaled El-Shami; Kevin C Oeffinger; Nicole L Erb; Anne Willis; Jennifer K Bretsch; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Rachel S Cannady; Sandra L Wong; Johnie Rose; April L Barbour; Kevin D Stein; Katherine B Sharpe; Durado D Brooks; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Michael Jefford; Jon Emery; Eva Grunfeld; Andrew Martin; Paula Rodger; Alexandra M Murray; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Alexander Heriot; Jo Phipps-Nelson; Lisa Guccione; Dorothy King; Karolina Lisy; Niall Tebbutt; Adele Burgess; Ian Faragher; Rodney Woods; Penelope Schofield Journal: Trials Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Pim P Valentijn; Fernando Pereira; Christina W Sterner; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef; Dirk Ruwaard; Jörgen Hegbrant; Giovanni F M Strippoli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 3.240