ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2026
Further validation of the patient roles and responsibilities scale.
Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Patient Roles and Responsibilities Scale (PRRS) measures the impact of cancer and treatment on 'real world' functioning such as caregiving and financial responsibilities. It was developed and validated in advanced cancer but with the intention to be sufficiently generic and appropriate for use in all cancers and stages. Here we further investigate the psychometric performance of the PPRS when completed by people three years after cancer diagnosis, treated with curative intent. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data collected during the HORIZONS Programme, a prospective longitudinal cohort study of the impact of cancer and treatment on everyday life. Data analysed were from the 36-month timepoint and included the PRRS alongside the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors and the EORTC QLQ-C30. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, criterion and convergent validity through correlation with other quality-of-life measures, and construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: Data from 1077 participants (453 breast, 388 gynaecological, 236 non-Hodgkin lymphoma) were included in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91 for the PRRS-16 and 0.69-0.92 for the subscales. The measure showed the predicted pattern of correlation with validation measures r = |0.58-0.82|. All CFA goodness-of-fit criteria were met, indicating an acceptable fit for the three-factor model, though correlations between factors were stronger than expected. Conclusion: This study provides further evidence of the reliability and validity of the PRRS and its performance and appropriateness for use in cancer groups other than those previously validated.
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.