A systematic review of the measurement properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer In-patient Satisfaction with Care Questionnaire, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32

Koen I Neijenhuijs, Femke Jansen, Neil K Aaronson, Anne Brédart, Mogens Groenvold, Bernhard Holzner, Caroline B Terwee, Pim Cuijpers, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

PURPOSE: The EORTC IN-PATSAT32 is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess cancer patients' satisfaction with in-patient health care. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the initial good measurement properties of the IN-PATSAT32 are confirmed in new studies.

METHODS: Within the scope of a larger systematic review study (Prospero ID 42017057237), a systematic search was performed of Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies that investigated measurement properties of the IN-PATSAT32 up to July 2017. Study quality was assessed, data were extracted, and synthesized according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.

RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this review. The evidence on reliability and construct validity were rated as sufficient and of the quality of the evidence as moderate. The evidence on structural validity was rated as insufficient and of low quality. The evidence on internal consistency was indeterminate. Measurement error, responsiveness, criterion validity, and cross-cultural validity were not reported in the included studies. Measurement error could be calculated for two studies and was judged indeterminate.

CONCLUSION: In summary, the IN-PATSAT32 performs as expected with respect to reliability and construct validity. No firm conclusions can be made yet whether the IN-PATSAT32 also performs as well with respect to structural validity and internal consistency. Further research on these measurement properties of the PROM is therefore needed as well as on measurement error, responsiveness, criterion validity, and cross-cultural validity. For future studies, it is recommended to take the COSMIN methodology into account.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2551-2560
Number of pages10
JournalSupportive Care in Cancer
Volume26
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2018

Cite this