PURPOSE: The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) is used worldwide to determine levels of quality of life of caregivers of patients with cancer; however, the few studies examining the underlying factor structure of the CQOLC have revealed differences between Western and Eastern cultures. This study sought to confirm the differences in the factor structures between the original CQOLC and a Taiwanese (Mandarin) version. METHODS: A total of 183 caregivers from a cancer center in Singapore participated in this exploratory cross-sectional study. All participants completed the CQOLC and a sociodemographic form; 30 participants repeated the CQOLC two weeks later. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was adequate for the CQOLC; however, confirmatory factor analyses did not support either the original four-factor model or the Taiwanese five-factor model. Exploratory factor analyses suggested the retaining of five factors to form a 25-item Singapore version (CQOLC-S25): burden, physical/practical concerns, emotional reactivity, self-needs, and social support. Inter-factor and factor scale correlations were positively significant for all factors except Support, which was negatively correlated with emotional reactivity and self-needs. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-cultural differences, which require further investigations, appear to underlie the utility and understanding of the CQOLC. More research is needed to better understand the needs of Singapore caregivers.
PURPOSE: The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) is used worldwide to determine levels of quality of life of caregivers of patients with cancer; however, the few studies examining the underlying factor structure of the CQOLC have revealed differences between Western and Eastern cultures. This study sought to confirm the differences in the factor structures between the original CQOLC and a Taiwanese (Mandarin) version. METHODS: A total of 183 caregivers from a cancer center in Singapore participated in this exploratory cross-sectional study. All participants completed the CQOLC and a sociodemographic form; 30 participants repeated the CQOLC two weeks later. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was adequate for the CQOLC; however, confirmatory factor analyses did not support either the original four-factor model or the Taiwanese five-factor model. Exploratory factor analyses suggested the retaining of five factors to form a 25-item Singapore version (CQOLC-S25): burden, physical/practical concerns, emotional reactivity, self-needs, and social support. Inter-factor and factor scale correlations were positively significant for all factors except Support, which was negatively correlated with emotional reactivity and self-needs. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-cultural differences, which require further investigations, appear to underlie the utility and understanding of the CQOLC. More research is needed to better understand the needs of Singapore caregivers.
Authors: Young Sun Rhee; Dong Ok Shin; Kwang Mi Lee; Han Jin Yu; Joung Wha Kim; Soon Ok Kim; Ran Lee; Yeon Ok Lee; Nam Shin Kim; Young Ho Yun Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Rathi Mahendran; Haikel A Lim; Joyce Y S Tan; Hui Ying Ng; Joanne Chua; Siew Eng Lim; Ee Heok Kua; Konstadina Griva Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.186