Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27318479›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

The need for supportive care among head and neck cancer patients: psychometric assessment of the Dutch version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34) and the newly developed head and neck cancer module (SCNS-HNC).

Femke Jansen, Birgit I Witte, Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan, Anna M Braspenning, C René Leemans, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Femke JansenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Birgit I WitteDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cornelia F van Uden-KraanDepartment of Clinical Psychology, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anna M BraspenningDepartment of Clinical Psychology, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C René LeemansDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IM.Verdonck@vumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the 34-item Short-Form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34) and the newly developed module for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients (SCNS-HNC).

methodsHNC patients were included from two cross-sectional studies. Content validity of the SCNS-HNC was analysed by examining redundancy and completeness of items. Factor structure was assessed using confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's correlation, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskall-Wallis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess internal consistency, construct validity and test-retest reliability.

resultsContent validity of the SCNS-HNC was good, although some HNC topics were missing. For the SCNS-SF34, a four-factor structure was found, namely physical and daily living, psychological, sexuality and health system and information and patient support (alpha = .79 to .95). For the SCNS-HNC, a two-factor structure was found, namely HNC-specific functioning and lifestyle (alpha = .89 and .60). Respectively, 96 and 89 % of the hypothesised correlations between the SCNS-SF34 or SCNS-HNC and other patient-reported outcome measures were found; 57 and 67 % also showed the hypothesised magnitude of correlation. The SCNS-SF34 domains discriminated between treatment procedure (physical and daily living p = .02 and psychological p = .01) and time since treatment (health system, information and patient support p = .02). Test-retest reliability of SCNS-SF34 domains and HNC-specific functioning domain was above .70 (ICC = .74 to .83), and ICC = .67 for the lifestyle domain. Floor effects ranged from 21.1 to 70.9 %.

conclusionsThe SCNS-SF34 and SCNS-HNC are valid and reliable instruments to evaluate the need for supportive care among (Dutch) HNC patients.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultHead and neck cancerInternal consistencyPsychometric characteristicsReliabilitySupportive care needsValidity

Identifiers

PMID27318479
PMCPMC5031728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.