Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32256051›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Development and Evaluation of the Supportive Needs Assessment Tool for Cirrhosis (SNAC).

Patricia C Valery, Christina M Bernardes, Katherine A Stuart, Gunter F Hartel, Steven M McPhail, Richard Skoien, Tony Rahman, Paul J Clark, Leigh U Horsfall, Kelly L Hayward and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Impact of Social Workers in Cirrhosis Care: a Systematic Review.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assessment of health-related quality of life and health utilities in Australian patients with cirrhosis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021
    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

12 authors.

Patricia C ValeryQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8823-3006
Christina M BernardesQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8061-7013
Katherine A StuartDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Gunter F HartelQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5454-6450
Steven M McPhailCentre for Functioning and Health Research, Queensland Health and the School of Public Health and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1463-662X
Richard SkoienDepartment of Gastroenterology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Tony RahmanGastroenterology & Hepatology Department, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia.
Paul J ClarkDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mater Hospitals, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Leigh U HorsfallCentre for Liver Disease Research, Translational Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kelly L HaywardCentre for Liver Disease Research, Translational Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6115-3420
Rohit GuptaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, QLD, Australia.
Elizabeth E PowellCentre for Liver Disease Research, Translational Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe report the development and psychometric testing of a Supportive Needs Assessment tool for Cirrhosis (SNAC).

methodsThe 50-item SNAC was administered to patients (n=465) diagnosed with cirrhosis recruited from five metropolitan hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Items were assessed for ceiling and floor effects, and exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure. Identified factors were assessed for internal consistency and convergent validity to validated psychosocial tools.

resultsExploratory factor analysis identified 4 factors (39 items), which together accounted for 49.2% of the total variance. The 39-item SNAC met the requirements of a needs assessment tool and identified a range of needs important to patients with cirrhosis that were grouped in four subscales: "Psychosocial issues", "Practical and physical needs", "Information needs", and "Lifestyle changes". Cronbach's alpha values for the four subscales ranged from 0.64 to 0.92. Convergent validity was supported by a strong correlation between the total SNAC score and that of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ; Spearman rho -0.68; p<0.001), and moderate correlations with the Distress Thermometer (Spearman rho 0.53; p<0.001) and seven subscales of a generic health-related quality of life instrument (Short Form 36; Spearman rho ranged from -0.48 to -0.57; p<0.001). The SNAC discriminated patient groups with respect to sex (p=0.013), age group (p<0.001), and hospital admission status (admitted vs not; p<0.001).

conclusionThese data provide initial evidence for the validity and reliability of the SNAC, an instrument designed to measure type and amount of perceived unmet practical and psychological needs of people diagnosed with cirrhosis.

Indexed as

chronic liver diseaseinstrument validationperceived needspsychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID32256051
PMCPMC7094148

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.