Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39523290›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Evaluating cancer patients' experiences with doctor-patient communication in Taiwan: development and validation of a new assessment instrument.

Hsin-Yi Yang, Yung-Chang Lin, Wen-Chi Shen, Shin-Cheh Chen, Chao-Hui Wang, Mei-Ling Chen

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Hsin-Yi YangSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Guishan Dist, No. 259, Wenhua 1St Rd, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Yung-Chang LinDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou Branch, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Wen-Chi ShenDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou Branch, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Shin-Cheh ChenCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chao-Hui WangSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Guishan Dist, No. 259, Wenhua 1St Rd, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Mei-Ling ChenSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Guishan Dist, No. 259, Wenhua 1St Rd, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan. anya0306@gmail.com.

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 107-2314-B-182-013-MY3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEffective communication between doctors and patients is crucial for the well-being of individuals diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to develop and validate a cancer-specific Doctor-Patient Communication Satisfaction Scale (DPCSS-Cancer) from the patients' perspective.

methodsInitial items were generated through literature review. Content validity was assessed via feedback from five experts, while face validity was determined through cognitive interviews with 13 patients. The revised DPCSS-Cancer was subsequently tested in a sample of 200 cancer patients to assess test-retest stability, internal consistency, factor structure, and criterion-related validity.

resultsThe development process resulted in a 15-item DPCSS-Cancer across two dimensions, using a 4-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, with a scale-level CVI of 0.96. Following expert and patient feedback, no items were eliminated, but modifications were made to item wording. In formal testing, the overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, with 0.89 for the first dimension and 0.95 for the second. Test-retest reliability was established at 0.82. The two-dimensional structure was partially confirmed. Criterion-related validity was supported through a significant positive correlation with a measure of trust in the physician (r = 0.86). Factors contributing to higher DPCSS-Cancer scores were identified.

conclusionThe DPCSS-Cancer shows satisfactory reliability and validity, making it a viable patient-reported outcome measure for assessing cancer patients' satisfaction with doctor-patient communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTaiwanCommunication skillsEvaluation/assessment of clinical performancePhysician/patient relationshipTesting/assessment

Identifiers

PMID39523290

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.