| Title |
Assessing cancer patients’ quality of life and supportive care needs: Translation-revalidation of the CARES in Flemish and exhaustive evaluation of concurrent validity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-016-1335-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bojoura Schouten, Elke Van Hoof, Patrick Vankrunkelsven, Ward Schrooten, Paul Bulens, Frank Buntinx, Jeroen Mebis, Dominique Vandijck, Irina Cleemput, Johan Hellings |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of cancer increases every year, leading to a growing population of patients and survivors in need for care. To achieve good quality care, a patient-centered approach is essential. Correct and timely detection of needs throughout the different stages of the care trajectory is crucial and can be supported by the use of screening and assessment in a stepped-care approach. The Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES) is a valuable and comprehensive quality of life and needs assessment instrument. For use in Flemish research and clinical practice, the CARES tool was translated for the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (Flanders) from its original English format. This protocol paper describes the translation and revalidation of this Flemish CARES version. After forward-backward translation of the CARES into Flemish we aim to recruit 150 adult cancer patients with a primary cancer diagnosis (stage I, II or III) for validation. In this study with a combination of qualitative and a quantitative approach, qualitative data will be collected through focus groups and supplemented by two phases of quantitative data collection: i) an initial patient survey containing questions on socio-demographic and medical data, the CARES and seven concurrent instruments; and ii) a second survey administered after 1 week containing the CARES and supplementary questions to explore their impressions on the content and the feasibility of the CARES. With this extensive data collection process, psychometric validity of the Flemish CARES can be tested thoroughly using classical test theory. Internal consistency of summary scales, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity, concurrent validity and feasibility of the instrument will be examined. If the Flemish CARES version is found reliable, valid and feasible, it will be used in future research and clinical practice. Comprehensive assessment with the CARES in a stepped-care approach can facilitate timely identification of cancer patients' psychosocial concerns and care needs so it can contribute to efficient provision of patient-centered quality care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02282696 (July 16, 2014). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,563,539
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,200
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,132
of 300,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#68
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.