ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024
An international field study for the reliability and validity of the EORTC communication questionnaire EORTC QLQ-COMU26.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a questionnaire to evaluate cancer patients' perception of their communication with healthcare professionals (HCPs): the EORTC QLQ-COMU26. In this study we test the validity and reliability of this novel measure in an international and culturally diverse sample of cancer patients.
methodsCancer patients completed the following EORTC questionnaires at two time points (before and during treatment): the QLQ-COMU26 (including a debriefing questionnaire), the QLQ-C30, and specific IN-PATSAT32 scales. These data were used to assess: the cross-cultural applicability, acceptability, scale structure, reliability, convergent/divergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change of the QLQ-COMU26.
resultsData were collected from 498 patients with various cancer diagnoses in 10 European countries, Japan, Jordan and India (overall 5 cultural regions). At most, only 3% of patients identified an item as confusing and 0.6% as upsetting, which indicates that the questionnaire was clear and did not trigger negative emotional responses. Confirmatory factor analysis and multi-trait scaling confirmed the hypothesised QLQ-COMU26 scale structure comprising six multi-item scales and four single items (RMSEA = 0.025). Reliability was good for all scales (internal consistency > 0.70; test-retest reliability > 0.85). Convergent validity was supported by correlations of ≥ 0.50 with related scales of the IN-PATSAT32 and correlations < 0.30 with unrelated QLQ-C30 scales. Known-groups validity was shown according to sex, education, levels of anxiety and depression, satisfaction with communication, disease stage and treatment intention, professional evaluated, and having a companion during the visit. The QLQ-COMU26 captured changes over time in groups that were defined based on changes in the item of satisfaction with communication.
conclusionThe EORTC QLQ-COMU26 is a reliable and valid measure of patients' perceptions of their communication with HCPs. The EORTC QLQ-COMU26 can be used in daily clinical practice and research and in various cancer patient groups from different cultures. This questionnaire can help to improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.