Kathleen M Mazor1, Richard L Street2, Valerie M Sue3, Andrew E Williams4, Borsika A Rabin5, Neeraj K Arora6. 1. Meyers Primary Care Institute, 630 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA 01605, USA. Electronic address: Kathy.Mazor@meyersprimary.org. 2. Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 456 Ross Street, College Station, TX 77843, USA. Electronic address: r-street@tamu.edu. 3. Kaiser Permanente, 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Electronic address: valerie.m.sue@kp.org. 4. Maine Medical Center Research Institute, 81 Research Drive, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA. Electronic address: aewilliams@mmc.org. 5. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado-Denver, 13001 E 17th Place, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Electronic address: borsika.a.rabin@gmail.com. 6. Patient-Centered Research Outcomes (PCORI) Research Branch, 1828L Street NW #900, Washington, DC 20036, USA. Electronic address: narora@pcori.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relevance, performance and potential usefulness of the Patient Assessment of cancer Communication Experiences (PACE) items. METHODS: Items focusing on specific communication goals related to exchanging information, fostering healing relationships, responding to emotions, making decisions, enabling self-management, and managing uncertainty were tested via a retrospective, cross-sectional survey of adults who had been diagnosed with cancer. Analyses examined response frequencies, inter-item correlations, and coefficient alpha. RESULTS: A total of 366 adults were included in the analyses. Relatively few selected Does Not Apply, suggesting that items tap relevant communication experiences. Ratings of whether specific communication goals were achieved were strongly correlated with overall ratings of communication, suggesting item content reflects important aspects of communication. Coefficient alpha was ≥.90 for each item set, indicating excellent reliability. Variations in the percentage of respondents selecting the most positive response across items suggest results can identify strengths and weaknesses. CONCLUSION: The PACE items tap relevant, important aspects of communication during cancer care, and may be useful to cancer care teams desiring detailed feedback. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PACE is a new tool for eliciting patients' perspectives on communication during cancer care. It is freely available online for practitioners, researchers and others.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relevance, performance and potential usefulness of the Patient Assessment of cancer Communication Experiences (PACE) items. METHODS: Items focusing on specific communication goals related to exchanging information, fostering healing relationships, responding to emotions, making decisions, enabling self-management, and managing uncertainty were tested via a retrospective, cross-sectional survey of adults who had been diagnosed with cancer. Analyses examined response frequencies, inter-item correlations, and coefficient alpha. RESULTS: A total of 366 adults were included in the analyses. Relatively few selected Does Not Apply, suggesting that items tap relevant communication experiences. Ratings of whether specific communication goals were achieved were strongly correlated with overall ratings of communication, suggesting item content reflects important aspects of communication. Coefficient alpha was ≥.90 for each item set, indicating excellent reliability. Variations in the percentage of respondents selecting the most positive response across items suggest results can identify strengths and weaknesses. CONCLUSION: The PACE items tap relevant, important aspects of communication during cancer care, and may be useful to cancer care teams desiring detailed feedback. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PACE is a new tool for eliciting patients' perspectives on communication during cancer care. It is freely available online for practitioners, researchers and others.
Authors: R D Hays; J A Shaul; V S Williams; J S Lubalin; L D Harris-Kojetin; S F Sweeny; P D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Edward Guadagnoli; Charles S Fuchs; Kathleen J Yost; Cynthia M Creech; Rosemary D Cress; Lilia C O'Connor; Dee W West; William E Wright Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ron D Hays; Laura J Berman; Michael H Kanter; Mildred Hugh; Rachel R Oglesby; Chong Y Kim; Mike Cui; Julie Brown Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Kathleen M Mazor; Bridget Gaglio; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Gwen L Alexander; Azadeh Stark; Mark C Hornbrook; Kathleen Walsh; Jennifer Boggs; Celeste A Lemay; Cassandra Firneno; Colleen Biggins; Mary Ann Blosky; Neeraj K Arora Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ron D Hays; Steven Martino; Julie A Brown; Mike Cui; Paul Cleary; Sarah Gaillot; Marc Elliott Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Kevin W Eva; Heather Armson; Eric Holmboe; Jocelyn Lockyer; Elaine Loney; Karen Mann; Joan Sargeant Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Nora B Henrikson; Melissa L Anderson; John Dickerson; John J Ewing; Robin Garcia; Erin Keast; Deborah A King; Cara Lewis; Blake Locher; Carmit McMullen; Consuelo M Norris; Amanda F Petrik; Arvind Ramaprasan; Jennifer S Rivelli; Jennifer L Schneider; Lisa Shulman; Leah Tuzzio; Matthew P Banegas Journal: Trials Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Lixin Song; Christina Tyler; Margaret F Clayton; Eleanor Rodgiriguez-Rassi; Latorya Hill; Jinbing Bai; Raj Pruthi; Donald E Bailey Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: Kathleen F Mittendorf; Tia L Kauffman; Laura M Amendola; Katherine P Anderson; Barbara B Biesecker; Michael O Dorschner; Devan M Duenas; Donna J Eubanks; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Marian J Gilmore; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Galen Joseph; Stephanie A Kraft; Sandra Soo Jin Lee; Michael C Leo; Elizabeth G Liles; Nangel M Lindberg; Kristin R Muessig; Sonia Okuyama; Kathryn M Porter; Leslie S Riddle; Bradley A Rolf; Alan F Rope; Jamilyn M Zepp; Gail P Jarvik; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Nathan D Shippee; Tetyana P Shippee; Patrick D Mobley; Karl M Fernstrom; Heather R Britt Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2017-01-29 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Jacqueline A Odgis; Katie M Gallagher; Sabrina A Suckiel; Katherine E Donohue; Michelle A Ramos; Nicole R Kelly; Gabrielle Bertier; Christina Blackburn; Kaitlyn Brown; Lena Fielding; Jessenia Lopez; Karla Lopez Aguiniga; Estefany Maria; Jessica E Rodriguez; Monisha Sebastin; Nehama Teitelman; Dana Watnick; Nicole M Yelton; Avinash Abhyankar; Noura S Abul-Husn; Aaron Baum; Laurie J Bauman; Jules C Beal; Toby Bloom; Charlotte Cunningham-Rundles; George A Diaz; Siobhan Dolan; Bart S Ferket; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Patricia Kovatch; Thomas V McDonald; Patricia E McGoldrick; Rosamond Rhodes; Michael L Rinke; Mimsie Robinson; Arye Rubinstein; Lisa H Shulman; Christian Stolte; Steven M Wolf; Elissa Yozawitz; Randi E Zinberg; John M Greally; Bruce D Gelb; Carol R Horowitz; Melissa P Wasserstein; Eimear E Kenny Journal: Trials Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Hannah Glick; Aashima Sarin; Lindsey A Herrel; Lindsay Ma; Marissa Moore; Inga Van Wieren; Stephanie Chisolm; Diana O'Dell; Ashley Duby; Todd M Morgan; James E Montie; Daniela Wittmann Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Jonathan S Berg; Jeannette T Bensen; Brooke S Staley; Laura V Milko; Margaret Waltz; Ida Griesemer; Lonna Mollison; Tracey L Grant; Laura Farnan; Myra Roche; Angelo Navas; Alexandra Lightfoot; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Julianne M O'Daniel; Suzanne C O'Neill; Feng-Chang Lin; Tamara S Roman; Alicia Brandt; Bradford C Powell; Christine Rini Journal: Trials Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.279