The European Portuguese version of the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer Scale (RCACS): A psychometric validation for young adult female cancer survivors

Bártolo, Ana; Santos, Isabel M.; Valério, Elisabete; Costa, Antónia; Reis, Salomé; Raposo, Sofia; Monteiro, Sara

doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101781

Cited by 9 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Known groups validity of the Swedish RCAC was shown by signi cantly higher levels of reproductive concerns among women who wanted to have children compared to those without a child wish, as hypothesised. These results are in line with those reported for the original RCAC (7) and recently for the Portuguese version of the RCAC (11).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…This nding was consistent with previous studies showing that high levels of the RCAC are associated with lower levels of emotional function (11), social support and satisfaction with life (25). These results are also in line with previous reports that higher RCAC scores are associated with anxiety and depression (7,10,11). The present and previous results (7,10,11), indicate that reproductive concerns, as measured by the RCAC, represent a construct that is related to but distinct from anxiety and depression.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…While the population-based sample in our study may be regarded as more representative for survivors of breast cancer owing to a lower risk of selection bias, the sociodemographics of the sample differed from those in previous studies. In comparison to the studies mentioned above (7,11), larger proportions of women in the present study were currently in a partner relationship, already had children and had no wish for (additional) children. Hence it is not surprising that many participants chose the lowest possible scores for the dimensions Partner disclosure, Fertility potential and Becoming pregnant, resulting in oor effects.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

“…Thus, in comparison to previous studies of the RCAC that included lower percentages of breast cancer survivors (7,9,11), more women in our cohort may have had reason to be concerned about a genetic cancer risk for their children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The differences with regard to the strength of the model t indices and convergent validity may be attributed to differences in the sampling techniques between the studies. In the studies describing the original RCAC, participants were recruited via social media outreach and fertility preservation programs (7,9) and the study of the Portuguese RCAC used convenience sampling (11). This may have resulted in an overrepresentation of female cancer survivors interested in having children, as also pointed out by some of the researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale

Anandavadivelan

Wiklander

Wettergren

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Reproductive concerns are common among young cancer survivors and include worries related to different aspects of fertility and parenthood. The Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale is an 18-item scale with six dimensions, developed to capture a variety of such concerns. The aim of the present study was to describe the cultural adaptation of the RCAC scale into Swedish and evaluate its psychometric properties among young women who have undergone treatment for cancer.Methods: The RCAC was forward translated from English into Swedish and assessed for cultural adaptation based on a two-panel approach followed by cognitive interviews with the target group. For the psychometric evaluation, a Swedish cohort of 181 female young adult breast cancer survivors completed a survey including the RCAC scale approximately 1.5 years post-diagnosis. Psychometric properties were examined by analyses of construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity), data quality (score distribution, floor and ceiling effects), reliability and known-groups validity. Results: The confirmatory factor analysis yielded an acceptable fit (RMSEA 0.08, SRMR 0.09, CFI 0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated by a negative correlation of moderate size (-0.36) between the RCAC total score and the emotional functional scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Reliability measured with Revelle Ω total was satisfactory (0.73-0.92) for five of the dimensions, and poor for the dimension Becoming pregnant (Revelle Ω total = 0.60); Cronbach’s alpha showed a similar pattern. Known-groups validity was indicated by significantly higher RCAC mean score differences (MD), reflecting more concerns, among women with a certain (MD 4.56 [95% CI 3.13 to 5.99]) or uncertain (MD 3.41 [95% CI 1.68 to 5.14]) child wish, compared to those with no wish for (additional) children. Conclusion: The translation and cultural adaptation of the Swedish RCAC has resulted in a scale demonstrating construct and known-groups validity, and satisfactory reliability for five of six dimensions. The dimension Becoming pregnant showed non-optimal internal consistency and should undergo further evaluation. The Swedish RCAC is recommended to be used in research settings for measurement of concerns related to fertility and parenthood in young women with cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%