ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025
Development and Psychometric Validation of a Comprehensive Questionnaire to Assess Oncologists' Knowledge of Chemotherapy-Drug Interaction.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemotherapy-drug interactions (CDIs) pose significant challenges in oncology, affecting treatment efficacy and patient safety. Despite their importance, there is a lack of validated tools to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to address this gap and ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 135 oncologists from various clinical roles in Iraq. The questionnaire included 46 general knowledge and 26 specific knowledge items, developed based on literature and expert consultation. Psychometric validation involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis was applied to evaluate item-level performance. The EFA and CFA identified six distinct domains in the general knowledge section, with strong factor loadings for most items. Items addressing definitions, classifications, and risk factors demonstrated high loadings (e.g., "Severe chemotherapy-drug interactions often necessitate aggressive monitoring," EFA: 0.73, CFA: 0.78). Specific knowledge items also exhibited robust psychometric properties, with high discrimination indices (a > 1.5) and low guessing parameters. Reliability analysis indicated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8) and stability over time (ICC > 0.75). The questionnaire effectively differentiated respondents based on their knowledge levels and demonstrated good model fit (CFI: 0.93, RMSEA: 0.06). This study developed and validated a reliable and robust questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of CDIs. The tool provides a standardized method for evaluating CDI knowledge, addressing a critical gap in oncology practice. Future research should focus on applying this questionnaire in diverse contexts and updating it to reflect advancements in clinical guidelines and drug interaction knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39849278What 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.