SLPRNOtherInternational journal of nursing sciences2021

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Head and Neck Information Needs Questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer and their caregivers.

Yu Li, Lihui Liu, Rong Yan and 4 others

PMID 34307786

WHAT IT FOUND

In 207 patients and 174 caregivers, a Chinese questionnaire asking what information head and neck cancer patients and caregivers need was understandable and scored consistently.

It is not evidence that using it improves care.

Key findings

01The Chinese version was understandable when pilot tested with 30 patients and caregivers, and the analysis included 207 valid patient responses and 174 valid caregiver responses.

02The whole questionnaire scored consistently for patients (0.82) and caregivers (0.78), with split-half consistency 0.84 and 0.81.

03The caregiver version differed from the English version: items 22, 23, and 27 moved from Psychosocial to Survivorship.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPsWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The design was cross-sectional, so it cannot show how information needs change over time. Responsiveness to change was not assessed, so the questionnaire is not proven to measure change. Sampling was by convenience among patients and caregivers willing to complete the questionnaire. Patients who were too unwell may not have responded. The caregiver version did not have the same structure as the English version. Thyroid cancer patients were included, and the authors note their information needs may need separate study.

Declared interests

The study was supported by Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that using this questionnaire improves patient care. It was tested as a measure of information needs, not as an intervention, and responsiveness to change was not assessed.

Read it on PubMed →