↓ Skip to main content

The Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS): a Pre-test Study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS): a Pre-test Study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1440-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Merel de Jong, Sietske J. Tamminga, Angela G.E.M. de Boer, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen

Abstract

Returning to and continuing work is important to many cancer survivors, but also represents a challenge. We know little about subjective work outcomes and how cancer survivors perceive being returned to work. Therefore, we developed the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). Our aim was to pre-test the items of the initial QWLQ-CS on acceptability and comprehensiveness. In addition, item retention was performed by pre-assessing the relevance scores and response distributions of the items in the QWLQ-CS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after cancer survivors, who had returned to work, filled in the 102 items of the QWLQ-CS. To improve acceptability and comprehensiveness, the semi-structured interview inquired about items that were annoying, difficult, confusing, twofold or redundant. If cancer survivors had difficulty explaining their opinion or emotion about an item, the interviewer used verbal probing technique to investigate the cancer survivor's underlying thoughts. The cancer survivors' comments on the items were analysed, and items were revised accordingly. Decisions on item retention regarding the relevance of items and the response distributions were made by means of pre-set decision rules. The 19 cancer survivors (53 % male) had a mean age of 51 ± 11 years old. They were diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 with lymphoma, leukaemia, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer. Acceptability of the QWLQ-CS was good - none of the items were annoying - but 73 items were considered difficult, confusing, twofold or redundant. To improve acceptability, for instance, the authors replaced the phrase 'disease' with 'health situation' in several items. Consequently, comprehensiveness was improved by the authors rephrasing and adjusting items by adding clarifying words, such as 'in the work situation'. The pre-assessment of the relevance scores resulted in a sufficient number of cancer survivors indicating the items as relevant to their quality of working life, and no evident indication for uneven response distributions. Therefore, all items were retained. The 104 items of the preliminary QWLQ-CS were found relevant, acceptable and comprehensible by cancer survivors who have returned to work. The QWLQ-CS is now suitable for larger sample sizes of cancer survivors, which is necessary to test the psychometric properties of this questionnaire.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Psychology 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,799,103
of 7,849,747 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,752
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,342
of 269,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#100
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,849,747 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 269,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.