The EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire: EORTC IN-PATSAT32

Abstract

The EORTC IN-PATSAT32 appears to be a reliable and valid instrument when applied to a sample of Spanish cancer patients. These results are in line with those of the EORTC validation study.

Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Satisfaction with Care EORTC-in-patsat32 Questionnaire among Iranian Cancer Patients

“…ease of access by means of transport and parking and easy finding one's way inside the hospital), which might best be handled separately (Bredart et al, 2005b;Arraras et al, 2009). Likewise, our results endue strong support to the convergent, discriminant and divergent validity of the questionnaire.…”

“…(Arraras et al, 2009) Our results were much less than the European counterparts and Taiwan, (Bredart et al, 2007) and fairly higher than Morocco as a similar economic level. (Obtel et al, 2012) The lower frequency of ceiling effect in this study (ranging 10-24%) compared to the Spanish version (ranging 6-46%) in one hand, and zero percent of floor effect in the Spanish version compared to higher ones (ranging 0.5-11%) on the other hand indicates better discrimination property of Persian version of the instrument in detecting differences between groups of cancer patients.…”

“…Internal consistency for all but one of the scales (scale-10, alpha: 0.67), was fairly high, which is consistent with other validation studies, and better than the Spanish version, where Cronbach's alpha for hospital access was weak (α=0.36). (Arraras et al, 2009) The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was lower than 0.7 in only one domain (hospital access) that is probably conceptual difference of the two questions (29-30), though these two items seem relevant. (Arraras et al, 2009) The first question in access domain refers to external access (the ease of access to hospital), while the second question is about internal access (the ease of finding one's way to the different departments); therefore almost 20% of our patients scored 'poor' to the external access, while only 8% did the same for internal access.…”

“…(Arraras et al, 2009) The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was lower than 0.7 in only one domain (hospital access) that is probably conceptual difference of the two questions (29-30), though these two items seem relevant. (Arraras et al, 2009) The first question in access domain refers to external access (the ease of access to hospital), while the second question is about internal access (the ease of finding one's way to the different departments); therefore almost 20% of our patients scored 'poor' to the external access, while only 8% did the same for internal access. This might be due to the referral nature of our wards, where patients from different parts of the city or even the country, seek their medical care in these wards, while as a result of 'quality management' protocols, all internal pathways are marked to help patients and their carers find the paths easily.…”

“…This is why a more patient-centered approach health care has adopted Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has developed a 30-item quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) which is used as a core questionnaire, designed to evaluate health related quality of life in cancer patients, which is highly effective in outcome assessment in different designs including clinical trials and even in routine clinical practice (McLachlan et al, 1998;Asadi-Lari et al, 2004;Esmaili-Hesari et al, 2012). EORTC has also developed a range of supplementary modules to assess specific issues according to the type of treatment or disease site or even specific to dimensions such as fatigue (Arraras et al, 2009). EORTC has recently developed and validated cross-culturally a specific questionnaire to assess cancer in-patients' satisfaction of the quality of hospital-based cancer care (the EORTC-in-patsat32), which contains 32 items organized in eleven multi-item scales and three single items.…”