Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519187›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2020

Development and content validation of a questionnaire measuring patient empowerment in cancer follow-up.

Nanna Bjerg Eskildsen, Lone Ross, Caroline Bulsara, Susanne Malchau Dietz, Thora Grothe Thomsen, Mogens Groenvold, Susanne S Pedersen, Clara Rübner Jørgensen, Anna Thit Johnsen

Open access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Patient Participation and the Environment: A Scoping Review of Instruments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nanna Bjerg EskildsenDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. nbeskildsen@health.sdu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-2471
Lone RossDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4406-604X
Caroline BulsaraSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, WA, Australia.
Susanne Malchau DietzPatient and Public (PPI) Representative, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thora Grothe ThomsenZealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Mogens GroenvoldDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Susanne S PedersenDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8055-3251
Clara Rübner JørgensenDepartment for Disability Inclusion and Special Needs, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8387-4819
Anna Thit JohnsenDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0753-9634
University of Southern Denmark · DKFrederiksberg Hospital · DKThe University of Notre Dame Australia · AUUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Kræftens Bekæmpelse R113-A6922-14-S34
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to develop and ensure the content validity of a new patient-reported outcome measure, the Cancer Patient Empowerment Questionnaire (CPEQ), to measure the level of, desire for, and enablement of empowerment among cancer patients in follow-up.

methodsAn iterative process based on: (i) empowerment theories by Zimmerman and Tengland, (ii) a systematic review of questionnaires measuring empowerment or related concepts among cancer patients, (iii) qualitative data from 18 semi-structured interviews with Danish cancer patients in follow-up, (iv) input from a group of eight cancer patients involved as co-researchers and from an expert steering group, and (v) cognitive interviews with 15 cancer patients in follow-up.

resultsThe items for the CPEQ were developed and revised and 12 versions of the questionnaire were evaluated. The final version consists of 67 items, covering three different dimensions of empowerment: (A) empowerment outcomes consisting of three components: (A1) the intrapersonal-, (A2) interactional-, and (A3) behavioral component, (B) empowerment facilitators (enablement), and (C) the value of empowerment.

conclusionsThis study documents the theoretical and empirical basis for the development of the CPEQ and its content validity. The CPEQ provides a tool for researchers to assess the level of, desire for, and enablement of empowerment among cancer patients. The next steps will be to use the CPEQ in a nationwide study of empowerment in cancer follow-up and subsequently shorten the CPEQ based on psychometric methods in order to make it more relevant in clinical studies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPsychometricsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesEmpowermentNeoplasmsPatient-centered carePatient participationPatient-reported outcome measuresPPIPsycho-oncologySurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32519187
OpenAlexW3033553169

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.