A Wind1, E D Hartman2,3, R R J P Van Eekeren2, R P W F Wijn4, J Halámková5,6, J Mattson7, S Siesling3,8, W H van Harten2,3. 1. Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands. ankewind@gmail.com. 2. Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, technical Medical Centre, Faculty of behavioural, management and social sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 4. Departement of Urology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 7. Helsinki University Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland. 8. Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Taking patient centeredness into account is important in healthcare. The European Cancer Consumer Quality Index (ECCQI) is a validated tool for international benchmarking of patient experiences and satisfaction. This study aimed to further validate the ECCQI in larger and more uniform groups of high volume tumours such as breast and prostate cancer. A second objective was the verification of the influence of cultural factors of the country to determine its possible use in international benchmarking. METHODS: Data from two survey studies in eight European countries were combined. Socio-demographic correlations were analysed with Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to validate internal consistency. Influences of masculinity (MAS), power distance (PD) and uncertainty avoidance (UA) were determined by linear regression analysis in a general model and subgroup models. RESULTS: A total of 1322 surveys were included in the analysis (1093 breast- and 348 prostate cancer patients). Cronbach's alpha was good (α ≥ 0.7) or acceptable (0.5 ≤ α ≤ 0.7) in 8 out of 9 questionnaire categories, except in the category 'Safety' (α = 0.305). Overall ECCQI scores ranged from 22.1 to 25.1 between countries on a 1-35 scale (categories had a 1-4 scale). In certain subcategories such as 'Organisation' (range 2.2 vs 3.0) and 'Supervision & Support' (range 3.0 vs 3.8) a large difference was observed between countries. Differences in 'Overall opinion' were however small: mean scores of 3.7 vs 3.9, whereas median scores were all the maximum of 4.0. Power distance was positively associated with higher patient satisfaction scores whereas Uncertainty avoidance was negatively associated with these scores. Masculinity was only associated with patient satisfaction scores in lower educated patients. We found the highest impact of culture on overall scores in Hungary and Portugal and the lowest in Romania. CONCLUSIONS: The ECCQI shows high internal consistency in all categories except 'Safety'. Especially in separate categories and overall ECCQI scores the questionnaire showed discriminative value. This study showed a positive correlation of power distance and a negative correlation for uncertainty avoidance in some countries. When using the ECCQI for international benchmarking these two dimensions of culture should be taken into account.
BACKGROUND: Taking patient centeredness into account is important in healthcare. The European Cancer Consumer Quality Index (ECCQI) is a validated tool for international benchmarking of patient experiences and satisfaction. This study aimed to further validate the ECCQI in larger and more uniform groups of high volume tumours such as breast and prostate cancer. A second objective was the verification of the influence of cultural factors of the country to determine its possible use in international benchmarking. METHODS: Data from two survey studies in eight European countries were combined. Socio-demographic correlations were analysed with Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to validate internal consistency. Influences of masculinity (MAS), power distance (PD) and uncertainty avoidance (UA) were determined by linear regression analysis in a general model and subgroup models. RESULTS: A total of 1322 surveys were included in the analysis (1093 breast- and 348 prostate cancerpatients). Cronbach's alpha was good (α ≥ 0.7) or acceptable (0.5 ≤ α ≤ 0.7) in 8 out of 9 questionnaire categories, except in the category 'Safety' (α = 0.305). Overall ECCQI scores ranged from 22.1 to 25.1 between countries on a 1-35 scale (categories had a 1-4 scale). In certain subcategories such as 'Organisation' (range 2.2 vs 3.0) and 'Supervision & Support' (range 3.0 vs 3.8) a large difference was observed between countries. Differences in 'Overall opinion' were however small: mean scores of 3.7 vs 3.9, whereas median scores were all the maximum of 4.0. Power distance was positively associated with higher patient satisfaction scores whereas Uncertainty avoidance was negatively associated with these scores. Masculinity was only associated with patient satisfaction scores in lower educated patients. We found the highest impact of culture on overall scores in Hungary and Portugal and the lowest in Romania. CONCLUSIONS: The ECCQI shows high internal consistency in all categories except 'Safety'. Especially in separate categories and overall ECCQI scores the questionnaire showed discriminative value. This study showed a positive correlation of power distance and a negative correlation for uncertainty avoidance in some countries. When using the ECCQI for international benchmarking these two dimensions of culture should be taken into account.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer care; Consumer quality; Cultural dimensions; Patient satisfaction
Authors: Liubov V Borisova; Pål E Martinussen; Håvard T Rydland; Per Stornes; Terje A Eikemo Journal: Scand J Public Health Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Hester Wessels; Alexander de Graeff; Klaske Wynia; Miriam de Heus; Cas L J J Kruitwagen; Saskia C C M Teunissen; Emile E Voest Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anke Wind; Mark Patrick Roeling; Jana Heerink; Herman Sixma; Pietro Presti; Claudio Lombardo; Wim van Harten Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Mariëlle Ouwens; Rosella Hermens; Marlies Hulscher; Saskia Vonk-Okhuijsen; Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen; René Termeer; Henri Marres; Hub Wollersheim; Richard Grol Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Judith C Booij; Marieke Zegers; Pauline M P J Evers; Michelle Hendriks; Diana M J Delnoij; Jany J D J M Rademakers Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 4.430