Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24886475›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

The Survivor Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS) for haematological cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study assessing the relevance and psychometric properties.

Alix Hall, Catherine D'Este, Flora Tzelepis, Rob Sanson-Fisher, Marita Lynagh

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Development of a survivorship screening tool in survivors of hematopoietic cell transplant.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Dyadic interdependence of psychosocial outcomes among haematological cancer survivors and their support persons.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  9. Prevalence and associates of psychological distress in haematological cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alix HallPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle & Hunter Medical Research Institute, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. alix.hall@newcastle.edu.au.
Catherine D'Este
Flora Tzelepis
Rob Sanson-Fisher
Marita Lynagh
University of Newcastle Australia · AUAustralian National University · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRelevant and psychometrically sound needs assessment tools are necessary for accurate assessment of haematological cancer survivors unmet needs. No previous study has developed nor psychometrically evaluated a comprehensive needs assessment tool for use with population-based samples of haematological cancer survivors. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Survivor Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS) with haematological cancer survivors.

methodsThe relevance, content and face validity of the SUNS to haematological cancer survivors was assessed using qualitative interviews. Psychometric evaluation was conducted using data collected from haematological cancer survivors, aged 18-80 years at recruitment and recruited from four Australian cancer registries. Construct, convergent and discriminant validity; internal reliability and floor and ceiling effects were assessed. A second survey was completed by a sub-sample of survivors recruited from two of the four registries to assess test-retest reliability.

resultsResults from 17 qualitative interviews confirmed the relevance, face and content validity of the original items of the SUNS for use with haematological cancer survivors. Overall, 1,957 eligible haematological cancer survivors were contacted by the cancer registries. Of these 1,280 were sent a survey, and 715 returned a survey (37% of eligible survivors contacted and 56% of survivors sent a survey). A total of 529 survivors completed all 89 items of the SUNS and were included in the exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis supported the original five-factor structure of the SUNS. Evidence for convergent validity was established, with all five domains of the SUNS illustrating a moderate positive correlation with all three subscales of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). All Cronbach's alpha values were above 0.9 and all corrected item-total correlations were acceptable (>0.2). Criteria for discriminant validity was not met, with only 10 of the 15 (67%) a-priori hypotheses supported. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for 40 of the 89 items (45%) and for three of the five domains. Significant floor effects were evident for all five domains.

conclusionsThe SUNS demonstrates evidence for multiple features of validity and reliability as a measure of unmet needs for haematological cancer survivors. However, evidence supporting some psychometric properties was limited.

Indexed as

Hematologic NeoplasmsPsychometricsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24886475
PMCPMC4026596
OpenAlexW2145334674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.