Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285767›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2018

Rasch analysis of the Herth Hope Index in cancer patients.

Tone Rustøen, Anners Lerdal, Caryl Gay, Anders Kottorp

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00760305 (Pro-self - a Nursing Intervention to Support and Educate Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers so That the Patient Can Stay Home), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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.

NCT00760305 nacompletednot on this map

Pro-self - a Nursing Intervention to Support and Educate Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers so That the Patient Can Stay Home

TypeinterventionalSponsorOslo University HospitalRan2004 to 2008Enrolled167ConditionsCancer, PainArmsPro self pain control programme
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Hope therapy in cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

4 authors.

Tone RustøenDepartment of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. tone.rustoen@medisin.uio.no.
Anners LerdalDepartment of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Caryl GayDepartment for Patient Safety and Research, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Anders KottorpFaculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of hope has been measured using the Herth Hope Index (HHI) in different samples, but varying factor structures comprising different items from the HHI have been reported. Therefore, further testing with regard to the dimensionality of the instrument is recommended. Rasch modeling can be used to evaluate validity evidence of an instrument's underlying structure, to identify items with poor fit to the rest of the scale, and to identify items that perform inconsistently across groups. The aim of this study was to assess the HHI's psychometric properties in a sample of cancer patients using a Rasch model. Adult oncology outpatients (n = 167) with pain from bone metastasis were included, and medical records were reviewed for disease and treatment information. Patients completed the 12-item HHI, which measures various dimensions of hope using a 4-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The internal scale validity, person response validity, unidimensionality, and uniform differential item functioning were evaluated by applying a Rasch rating scale model.

resultsFive (42%) of the twelve items (#3, #4, #5, #6 and #7) did not meet the criterion set for item goodness-of-fit. After removing these 5 items, the resulting 7-item scale demonstrated acceptable item fit to the model, acceptable unidimensionality (52.6% of the variance explained), acceptable person goodness-of-fit, adequate separation, and no differential item function.

conclusionA 7-item version of the HHI had better psychometric properties than the original 12-item version among patients with cancer-related pain.

trial registrationThe protocol ID is 158,707/V10 and it was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00760305 . Registered September 25, 2008.

Indexed as

HopeAdultAgedBone NeoplasmsCancer PainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30285767
PMCPMC6171309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.