PURPOSE: The recently introduced Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) measures congruence in patient-caregiver communication and was initially validated in lung cancer patients. Contributing to a greater proportion of the variance in the conflict scores, primary caregivers were hypothesized to experience greater stress. For a detailed understanding of conflicting communication patterns of cancer-affected families, our study aimed for psychometric validation of the CCAT-PF in a sample covering heterogeneous tumor entities. METHODS: Subsequent to a cross-sectional survey of 189 pairs of cancer patients (31 % gastrointestinal, 34 % lung, and 35 % urological) and their caregivers' exploratory factor analysis with principal component condensation and varimax rotation was conducted (response rate, 74.2 %). Reliability and construct validity were assessed calculating Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients for CCAT-P and CCAT-F scales and related constructs, respectively. RESULTS: Cancer-related communication according to the CCAT-PF can be subdivided into four factors including the scales Disclosure, Limitation of treatment, Family involvement in treatment decisions, and Continuing treatment. Reliability ranged from α = .51-.68. The Disclosure scale, describing poor cancer-related communication of the patient, was correlated with patient's distress (QSC-R10: r = .30, p < .0001), unmet needs in several areas (SCNS-SF-34: r = .25-.32, p < .001), and negatively with social/family well-being (FACT: r = -0.31, p < .0001). Higher scores on the scale were significantly associated with considerable decrements in emotional well-being especially for caregivers perceiving patients' disclosure as problematic. CONCLUSIONS: The Disclosure scale originating from the CCAT-PF emerged as a short, valid, and reliable stand-alone instrument for identifying conflicting communication in patient-caregiver-dyads at risk.
PURPOSE: The recently introduced Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) measures congruence in patient-caregiver communication and was initially validated in lung cancerpatients. Contributing to a greater proportion of the variance in the conflict scores, primary caregivers were hypothesized to experience greater stress. For a detailed understanding of conflicting communication patterns of cancer-affected families, our study aimed for psychometric validation of the CCAT-PF in a sample covering heterogeneous tumor entities. METHODS: Subsequent to a cross-sectional survey of 189 pairs of cancerpatients (31 % gastrointestinal, 34 % lung, and 35 % urological) and their caregivers' exploratory factor analysis with principal component condensation and varimax rotation was conducted (response rate, 74.2 %). Reliability and construct validity were assessed calculating Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients for CCAT-P and CCAT-F scales and related constructs, respectively. RESULTS:Cancer-related communication according to the CCAT-PF can be subdivided into four factors including the scales Disclosure, Limitation of treatment, Family involvement in treatment decisions, and Continuing treatment. Reliability ranged from α = .51-.68. The Disclosure scale, describing poor cancer-related communication of the patient, was correlated with patient's distress (QSC-R10: r = .30, p < .0001), unmet needs in several areas (SCNS-SF-34: r = .25-.32, p < .001), and negatively with social/family well-being (FACT: r = -0.31, p < .0001). Higher scores on the scale were significantly associated with considerable decrements in emotional well-being especially for caregivers perceiving patients' disclosure as problematic. CONCLUSIONS: The Disclosure scale originating from the CCAT-PF emerged as a short, valid, and reliable stand-alone instrument for identifying conflicting communication in patient-caregiver-dyads at risk.
Authors: Laurel L Northouse; Darlene W Mood; Ann Schafenacker; Gregory Kalemkerian; Mark Zalupski; Patricia LoRusso; Daniel F Hayes; Maha Hussain; John Ruckdeschel; A Mark Fendrick; Peter C Trask; David L Ronis; Trace Kershaw Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Catherine M Burns; Dorothy H Broom; Wayne T Smith; Keith Dear; Paul S Craft Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chris Lo; Sarah Hales; Michal Braun; Anne C Rydall; Camilla Zimmermann; Gary Rodin Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Natasha Michael; Alex Gorelik; Ekavi Georgousopoulou; Merlina Sulistio; Patrick Tee; Katherine Hauser; David Kissane Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Sabrina Gröpper; Elke van der Meer; Tom Landes; Hubert Bucher; Anna Stickel; Ute Goerling Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Katsiaryna Laryionava; Katja Mehlis; Elena Bierwirth; Friederike Mumm; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Pia Heußner; Eva C Winkler Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-06-15