Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38898521›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

Psychometric validation of the Chinese versions of the quality of communication questionnaires for cancer patients and their family caregivers.

Zhihan Chen, Yanjia Li, Zhishan Xie, Siyuan Tang, Jinnan Xiao

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Zhihan Chen *Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, NO. 172 Rd, Changsha, 410013, China.
Yanjia Li *Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, NO. 172 Rd, Changsha, 410013, China.
Zhishan XieXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, NO. 172 Rd, Changsha, 410013, China.
Siyuan TangXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, NO. 172 Rd, Changsha, 410013, China. tangsyuan@126.com.
Jinnan XiaoXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, NO. 172 Rd, Changsha, 410013, China. jnxiao2021@csu.edu.cn.

Funding

The Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Provincial 2022JJ40650
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the lack of valid and reliable instruments for evaluating the quality of communication between physicians and cancer patients and their family caregivers in China, this study translated and culturally adapted the Quality of Communication questionnaires for cancer patients (QOC-P) and their family caregivers (QOC-F) for use in the Chinese context and evaluated their psychometric properties.

methodsThe QOC-P and QOC-F were translated following an adapted version of Brislin's translation model and culturally adapted according to a Delphi expert panel. We pretested and refined the Chinese versions of the QOC-P and QOC-F among 16 dyads of patients and their family caregivers. Subsequently, we administered the questionnaires to 228 dyads of patients and their family caregivers who were recruited from six tertiary hospitals. The content validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and reliability of the QOC-P and QOC-F were examined.

resultsThrough exploratory factor analysis, The QOC-P and QOC-F were divided into two dimensions: general communication and end-of-life communication. The Cronbach's coefficients ranged from 0.905 to 0.907 for the two subscales of the QOC-P and from 0.908 to 0.953 for the two subscales of the QOC-F. The two-week test-retest reliability was acceptable for both the QOC-P and QOC-F, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.993 and 0.991, respectively. The scale content validity index (QOC-P: 0.857, QOC-F: 1.0) and split-half reliability (QOC-P: 0.833, QOC-F: 0.935) were satisfactory. There was a negative correlation with anxiety and depression for both the QOC-P (r = -0.233 & -0.241, p < 0.001) and QOC-F (r = -0.464 & -0.420, p<0.001). The QOC-P showed a negative correlation with decision regret (r = -0.445, p<0.001) and a positive correlation with shared decision-making (r = 0.525, p<0.001), as hypothesized.

conclusionThe QOC-P and QOC-F show acceptable psychometric properties for evaluating the quality of communication between physicians and cancer patients and their family caregivers in both clinical and research contexts. Future studies should use more diverse and inclusive samples to test the structure of the Chinese version of the QOC-P and QOC-F with confirmatory factor analysis.

Indexed as

Cancer patientsCommunicationCultural adaptationFamily caregiversPsychometric propertyValidation

Identifiers

PMID38898521
PMCPMC11188171

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.