Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the Journal
Editorial office
Editorial board
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Ethical standards and procedures
Most read articles
Instructions for authors
Article Processing Charge (APC)
Regulations of paying article processing charge (APC)
ONCOLOGY / CLINICAL RESEARCH
Development and validation of the treatment expectation scale for patients with liver cancer
1
Department of Interventional Therapy, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
2
School of Nursing, China Medical University, Shenyang, China
3
Department of Community Nursing, School of Nursing, China Medical University, Shenyang, China
These authors had equal contribution to this work
Submission date: 2023-12-04
Final revision date: 2024-03-23
Acceptance date: 2024-04-06
Online publication date: 2024-04-19
Corresponding author
Yang Xu
Department of Interventional Therapy The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University Shenyang, China
Department of Interventional Therapy The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University Shenyang, China
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Liver cancer is one of the most common tumors in the world. Patients with liver cancer usually face substantial physical, psychological, and social burdens, which has created a great demand and expectation to ease the burden in all aspects. This study aimed to develop and validate the Treatment Expectation Scale for patients with Liver Cancer (TES-LC).
Material and methods:
The study was conducted in three phases. In the first stage, we used literature reviews and semi-structured interviews to generate the items to be included in the questionnaire TES-LC (version 1). In the second stage, two rounds of the Delphi expert consultation method were used to modify the first version to form TES-LC (version 2). In the third stage, projects were selected through project analysis and exploratory factor analysis to create TES-LC (version 3); then version 3 was tested for reliability and validity to generate version 4.
Results:
The final version of the TES-LC contains 19 items in 5 dimensions: disease symptoms, practical needs, psychological state, emotional satisfaction, and social function. Five common factors were extracted through exploratory factor analysis, explaining 60.11% of the variance. In the validation factor analysis, the fitting effect of the five-factor model was satisfactory after modification. The TES-LC had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s coefficient of 0.911 for the total scale.
Conclusions:
The TES-LC developed in this study has good reliability and validity and can provide a standardized tool for measuring treatment expectancy in patients with liver cancer, which is of good clinical utility.
Liver cancer is one of the most common tumors in the world. Patients with liver cancer usually face substantial physical, psychological, and social burdens, which has created a great demand and expectation to ease the burden in all aspects. This study aimed to develop and validate the Treatment Expectation Scale for patients with Liver Cancer (TES-LC).
Material and methods:
The study was conducted in three phases. In the first stage, we used literature reviews and semi-structured interviews to generate the items to be included in the questionnaire TES-LC (version 1). In the second stage, two rounds of the Delphi expert consultation method were used to modify the first version to form TES-LC (version 2). In the third stage, projects were selected through project analysis and exploratory factor analysis to create TES-LC (version 3); then version 3 was tested for reliability and validity to generate version 4.
Results:
The final version of the TES-LC contains 19 items in 5 dimensions: disease symptoms, practical needs, psychological state, emotional satisfaction, and social function. Five common factors were extracted through exploratory factor analysis, explaining 60.11% of the variance. In the validation factor analysis, the fitting effect of the five-factor model was satisfactory after modification. The TES-LC had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s coefficient of 0.911 for the total scale.
Conclusions:
The TES-LC developed in this study has good reliability and validity and can provide a standardized tool for measuring treatment expectancy in patients with liver cancer, which is of good clinical utility.
REFERENCES (43)
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020; 70: 7-30.
2.
Wang F, Mubarak S, Zhang Y, et al. Long-term trends of liver cancer incidence and mortality in China 1990-2017: a joinpoint and age-period-cohort analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 2878.
3.
He X, Song M, Qu J, et al. Basic and translational aging research in China: present and future. Protein Cell 2019; 10: 476-84.
4.
Ma HQ, Xiao XM, Guo YB, et al. Study on perioperative symptoms and related factors in patients with primary liver cancer. J Nurs 2018; 33: 19-23.
5.
Graf J, Stengel A. Psychological burden and psycho-oncological interventions for patients with hepatobiliary cancers-a systematic review. Front Psychol 2021; 12: 662777.
6.
Lu S, Ma M, Chen X. Correlation of life meaning and quality of life in patients after primary liver cancer. J Xinjiang Med Univ 2021; 44: 975-80.
7.
Zhao J, Guo BM, Liu CC, etc. Study the current status of the expected benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary heart disease. Chin J Nurs 2017; 52: 144-9.
8.
Bergerot CD, Bergerot PG, Philip EJ, et al. Perception of cure among patients with metastatic genitourinary cancer initiating immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer 2019; 7: 71.
9.
See MTA, Kowitlawakul Y, Tan AJQ, et al. Expectations and experiences of patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total joint arthroplasty: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Pract 2018; 24: e12621.
10.
Padilla JA, Feng JE, Anoushiravani AA, et al. Modifying patient expectations can enhance total hip arthroplasty postoperative satisfaction. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 209-14.
11.
Cao HJ, Li X, Li XL, et al. Factors influencing participant compliance in acupuncture trials: an in-depth interview study. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0231780.
12.
Akroyd A, Gunn KN, Rankin S, et al. Optimizing patient expectations to improve therapeutic response to medical treatment: a randomized controlled trial of iron infusion therapy. Br J Health Psychol 2020; 25: 639-51.
13.
Koller M, Lorenz W, Wagner K, et al. Expectations and quality of life of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. J R Soc Med 2000; 93: 621-8.
14.
Epstein AS, Prigerson HG, O’Reilly EM, et al. Discussions of life expectancy and changes in illness understanding in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2398-403.
15.
Nipp RD, Greer JA, El-Jawahri A, et al. Coping and prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 2551-7.
16.
George LS, Maciejewski PK, Epstein AS, et al. Advanced cancer patients’ changes in accurate prognostic understanding and their psychological well-being. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020; 59: 983-9.
17.
Nowicki A, Woźniak K, Krajnik M. Understanding the purpose of treatment and expectations in patients with inoperable lung cancer treated with palliative chemotherapy. Contemp Oncol (Pozn) 2015; 19: 333-7.
18.
Trask PC, Tellefsen C, Espindle D, et al. Psychometric validation of the cancer therapy satisfaction questionnaire. Value Health 2008; 11: 669-79.
19.
Park SJ, An SM, Kim SH. Development of a Korean version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Qual Life Res 2013; 22: 431-6.
20.
Janzen JA, Silvius J, Jacobs S, et al. What is a health expectation? Developing a pragmatic conceptual model from psychological theory. Health Expect 2006; 9: 37-48.
21.
Dougherty CM, Johnston SK, Thompson EA. Reliability and validity of the self-efficacy and outcome expectations after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation scales. Appl Nurs Res 2007; 20: 116-24.
22.
Application of the Delphi method in medical education research. Chin J Med Educ 2019; 39: 227-30.
23.
Wu ML. Questionnaire statistical analysis practice: operation and application of SPSS. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House 2010.
24.
King at Win, Charles W. Miller, Yep. Factor analysis: statistical methods and application problems [M]. Ye H，translation.Shanghai People’s Health Publishing House, 2012.
25.
Scheier MF, Carver CS. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol 1985; 4: 219-47.
26.
Schwarzer R, Born A. Optimistic self-beliefs: assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychology 1997; 3: 177-90.
27.
Wang CK, Hu ZF, Liu Y. Reliability and validity study of the general self-efficacy scale. Appl Psychol 2001; 7: 37-40.
28.
Jihan X, Juan C, Yongjing S, et al. Development and validation of a nutritional risk screening scale for stroke patients. Arch Med Sci 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/1....
30.
Fu HB, Pan HY, Kong DL, et al. The AMOS implementation of the second-order confirmatory factor model. China Health Statistics 2013; (1): 5.
31.
Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 2009; 74: 107-20.
33.
An SL, Chen BY. Reliability of the scale and its influencing factors. Foreign Med 2002; 19: 23-7.
34.
Zhao SM, King J. Questionnaire preparation instruction. Education and Science Press, Beijing 2006.
35.
Zhang LW. Positive use and misuse of validity. J Beijing Sport Univ 2002; 4: 493-495, 501.
36.
Xiang YT, Xiong LJ, He J, et al. Preparation and validity test of individual-organizational fit assessment scale. J Nurs 2019; 34: 48-51.
37.
Hurley AE, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA, Brannick MT. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and alternatives. J Organiz Behav 1997; 6: 667-83.
38.
Raba C, Shi Y, Shen QM, et al. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Osteoporosis Self-efficacy Scale. Chin J Osteoporosis Bone Mineral Salt Dis 2018; 11: 463-8.
39.
Tometich DB, Mosher CE, Hirsh AT, et al. Metastatic breast cancer patients’ expectations and priorities for symptom improvement. Support Care Cancer 2018; 26: 3781-8.
40.
Robinson ME, Brown JL, George SZ, et al. Multidimensional success criteria and expectations for treatment of chronic pain: the patient perspective. Pain Med 2005; 6: 336-45.
41.
Liu SY, He FY, Chen MX, et al. Mediation effect of self-efficacy between fear of disease progression and anxiety and depression in patients after HCC surgery. J Nurs Manag 2021; 21: 91-4.
42.
Shen M, Sheng G, Yang Y, et al. The distress and needs of Chinese patients with pituitary adenoma: a preliminary survey. Arch Med Sci 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/1....
43.
Sobczak K, Leoniuk K. Doctors’ attitudes in the situation of delivering bad news: patients’ experience and expectations. Arch Med Sci 2023; 19: 921-9.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1896-9151 |
| ISSN: | 1734-1922 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
