Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24722779›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

Assessing patient-caregiver communication in cancer--a psychometric validation of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) in a German sample.

Markus W Haun, Halina Sklenarova, Eva C Winkler, Johannes Huber, Michael Thomas, Laura A Siminoff, Michael Woll, Anette Brechtel, Wolfgang Herzog, Mechthild Hartmann

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy Between Self-Perceived Burden and End-of-Life Communication Difficulties in Cancer Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Patient-caregiver communication concordance in cancer-refinement of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool in an Australian sample.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Assessing cancer-related distress in cancer patients and caregivers receiving outpatient psycho-oncological counseling.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Markus W HaunDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany, markus.haun@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Halina Sklenarova
Eva C Winkler
Johannes Huber
Michael Thomas
Laura A Siminoff
Michael Woll
Anette Brechtel
Wolfgang Herzog
Mechthild Hartmann
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe recently introduced Cancer Communication Assessment Tool (CCAT-PF) measures congruence in patient-caregiver communication and was initially validated in lung cancer patients. Contributing to a greater proportion of the variance in the conflict scores, primary caregivers were hypothesized to experience greater stress. For a detailed understanding of conflicting communication patterns of cancer-affected families, our study aimed for psychometric validation of the CCAT-PF in a sample covering heterogeneous tumor entities.

methodsSubsequent to a cross-sectional survey of 189 pairs of cancer patients (31 % gastrointestinal, 34 % lung, and 35 % urological) and their caregivers' exploratory factor analysis with principal component condensation and varimax rotation was conducted (response rate, 74.2 %). Reliability and construct validity were assessed calculating Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients for CCAT-P and CCAT-F scales and related constructs, respectively.

resultsCancer-related communication according to the CCAT-PF can be subdivided into four factors including the scales Disclosure, Limitation of treatment, Family involvement in treatment decisions, and Continuing treatment. Reliability ranged from α = .51-.68. The Disclosure scale, describing poor cancer-related communication of the patient, was correlated with patient's distress (QSC-R10: r = .30, p < .0001), unmet needs in several areas (SCNS-SF-34: r = .25-.32, p < .001), and negatively with social/family well-being (FACT: r = -0.31, p < .0001). Higher scores on the scale were significantly associated with considerable decrements in emotional well-being especially for caregivers perceiving patients' disclosure as problematic.

conclusionsThe Disclosure scale originating from the CCAT-PF emerged as a short, valid, and reliable stand-alone instrument for identifying conflicting communication in patient-caregiver-dyads at risk.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID24722779
OpenAlexW2144955112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.