The Evaluation of a New Supportive Care Screening Tool for Radiation Therapy Patients

Abstract Objectives Individuals undergoing radiation therapy for cancer may experience a wide range of supportive care needs that are frequently not addressed. A screening tool was designed and tested for psychometric properties (technical characteristics) to assist radiation therapists to quickly identify those patients who require additional intervention during the course of their radiation treatment, allowing early and timely referral and facilitating the provision of quality, in-depth, and patient-centred supportive care. Methodology A comprehensive and itemized screening tool was designed to identify the patient concerns and distress level, capture the patient desire to be helped with specific concerns, and inform the centre of alternative help provided. The tool was administered simultaneously with the standardized instrument quality-of-life questionnaire. One hundred and fifteen radiation therapy patients completed both instruments on three occasions; the first two were 2 days apart, and the third, 2 weeks later. To test the new tool for reliability and sensitivity, the agreement between the responses on the first two occasions and those between the first and third occasions were analysed for both instruments. Correlations between the responses on the two instruments were also examined for concurrent validity. Results McNemar's test and the simple kappa coefficient both showed high agreement between item scores on the new screening tool when the first and the second occasions were compared. When the first and the third occasions were compared, the former test showed a shift from high agreement to lesser agreement across the item scores. The latter showed a shift in more than 97.7% of the items from a higher agreement to a lesser agreement. The new tool's sensitivity to change was further reinforced by the data from the validated quality-of-life questionnaire, which showed a similar change over time; the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient fell on average from 0.75 to 0.58 for the first and the second comparisons respectively, with all P values less than .0001. Concurrent validity was found to be acceptable. Conclusions The new screening tool was found to be reliable and sensitive, with acceptable validity. It is anticipated that the screening intervention will allow radiation therapists to standardize and formalize their approach to supportive care in radiation therapy outpatient clinics and enhance their capacity to identify and address patient concerns in a timely manner.