ArticleBMC health services research2025
Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Care Coordination Instrument for cancer patients.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer requires interdisciplinary intersectoral care. The Care Coordination Instrument (CCI) captures patients' perspectives on cancer care coordination. We aimed to translate, adapt, and validate the CCI for Germany (CCI German version).
methodsThe original English version contains 29 items in three domains, measured on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Validation was conducted in three phases (mixed methods): (I) translation; (II) adaptation: pilot testing and revision in an iterative process using semi-structured, cognitive interviews with patients and professionals (physicians specializing in cancer), with interviews transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by inductive coding; and (III) validation: quantitative validation performed online (LimeSurvey), of at least 80 German patients, each with common cancer (breast, prostate) and rare cancer (different entities), with examination of factor structure (factor analysis) and determination of internal consistency (Cronbach's α) as well as potential influencing factors such as gender, education, or migration background (multivariable regression).
resultsSix patients and six professionals tested the translated instrument for comprehensibility, readability, and acceptability. Two items were consistently problematic for interviewees. A 31-item version (29 items + 2 alternative items) was validated in 192 patients. The alternative items had a higher variance in response behavior and were better understood; therefore, they replaced the two problematic items. However, the three original domains could not be confirmed statistically. Exploratively, a two-factorial structure (with cross-loadings) emerged, which can be interpreted as "communication/information" (16 items) and "need-based navigation" (17 items). Overall, the instrument had a high internal consistency (total score α = 0.931, M = 47.16, SD = 14.25; communication/information α = 0.924, M = 30.14, SD = 8.93; need-based navigation α = 0.868, M = 23.99, SD = 8.37). Significant factors on the care coordination score are treatment location (hospital vs. private practice oncologist M = -9.83 score points, p = 0.011) and gender (women vs. men M = 8.92 score points, p = 0.002).
conclusionThe CCI German version is a valid instrument for measuring patients' perceptions of cancer care coordination. Both domains reflect important aspects of care. The sensitivity of the CCI should be examined in future studies involving different cancer entities.
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.