Chinesization of the quality of life assessment,venous device-port,and its reliability and validity tests for patients with breast cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To translate the assessment item sets of the Canadian version of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port for breast cancer patients with chest and arm ports (i.e. different implanting sites) into Chinese version, and to conduct a test of reliability and validity for it.

Methods:

According to the Brislin translation model, quality of life assessment, venous device-port underwent literal and back translations, and the Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port was preliminarily revised by consulting an expert and a preliminary test. A total of 270 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were assessed during the use of ports, and the reliability and the validity of the Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port scale were then tested.

Results:

The scale consisted of 23 yes/no items and seven numerical rating scales. The total Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.829, and each item ranged from 0.812 to 0.845. The item-level content validity index was 0.67–1.00, and the scale-level content validity index/average and the scale-level content validity index/universal agreement were 0.98 and 0.90, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the repeated measurement results of the scale was 0.554 (p < 0.01). Exploratory factor analysis showed that the cumulative explained variance of five common factors was 64.197%.

Conclusion:

The Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port scale is an effective assessment tool for quality of life with good reliability and validity in breast cancer patients with different implantation sites for totally implanted venous access devices in northern China.

Keywords

Totally implantable venous access devices quality of life arm implantation chest implantation validity reliability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Tabatabaie

Kasumova

Eskander

, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices: a review of complications and management strategies. Am J Clin Oncol 2017; 40(1): 94–105.

Di Carlo

Cordio

La Greca

, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 2001; 136(9): 1050–1053.

Groeger

Lucas

Thaler

, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119(12): 1168–1174.

Biffi

Pozzi

Agazzi

, et al. Use of totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: results of a monocentre series of 376 patients. Ann Oncol 2004; 15(2): 296–300.

Grannan

Taylor

. Early and late complications of totally implantable venous access devices. J Surg Oncol 1990; 44(1): 52–54.

Cai

Gan

, et al. Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients. World J Surg Oncol 2016; 14(1): 251.

Burbridge

Goyal

. Quality-of-life assessment: arm TIVAD versus chest TIVAD. J Vasc Access 2016; 17(6): 527–534.

Marcy

Dahlet

Brenet

, et al. Validation multicentrique d’un questionnaire évaluant l’acceptation et la satisfaction des patients porteurs de chambre à cathéter implantable: le questionnaire QASICC. B Cancer 2015; 102(4): 301–315.

Perneger

Courvoisier

Hudelson

, et al. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Qual Life Res 2015; 24(1): 147–151.

10.

Colquitt

Baer

Long

, et al. Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: a comparison of relative content validity. J Appl Psychol 2014; 99(4): 599–618.

11.

Streiner

. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 2003; 80(1): 99–103.

12.

Ferguson

Cox

. Exploratory factor analysis: a users’ guide. Int J Select Assess 1993; 1(2): 84–94.

13.

Tobias

Carlson

JE.

Brief report: Bartlett’s test of sphericity and chance findings in factor analysis. Multivariate Behav Res 1969; 4(3): 375–377.

14.

Lebeaux

Fernandez-Hidalgo

Chauhan

, et al. Management of infections related to totally implantable venous-access ports: challenges and perspectives. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14(2): 146–159.

15.

Biffi

Toro

Pozzi

, et al.

Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved?

Support Care Cancer 2014; 22(6): 1705–1714.

16.

\Kreis

Loehberg

Lux

, et al. Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33(1): 39–43.

17.

Lilienberg

Bengtsson

Starkhammar

. Implantable devices for venous access: nurses’ and patients’ evaluation of three different port systems. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19(1): 21–28.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB