Cancer patients' preferences for quantity or quality of life: German translation and validation of the quality and quantity questionnaire

Background: Decision-making with patients with incurable cancer often requires trade-offs between quality and length of life. The ‘Quality and Quantity Questionnaire' (QQ) is an English-language measure of patients' preference for length or quality of life. The aim of this study was to translate and validate this questionnaire. Materials and Methods: 1 new item was formulated to improve the ‘Quality of life' scale. Construct validity including exploratory factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability was determined in n = 194 patients. Results: The acceptability of the questionnaire among patients was high. The item-non-response rate was very low (2.5-4%). The 2 QQ scales ‘Quality of life' (QL) and ‘Length of life' (LL) had good and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's = 0.71 for LL and 0.59 for QL). Convergent validity was shown by significant correlation of the QL subscale with the CCAT (Cancer Communication Assessment Tool) subscale ‘Limitation of treatment' (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and the LL scale with the CCAT subscale ‘Continuing treatment' (r = 0.24, p = 0.00). Conclusion: The German version of ‘QQ' has satisfactory psychometric properties for measuring patients' preferences for LL or QL. It can be used in all research fields that should be informed by patients' preferences: shared decision-making, palliative care, and health services

Survivorship - lebenslange Begleitung von Krebspatienten

Survivorship - lebenslange Begleitung von Krebspatiente

Erratum to: ComOn Coaching: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a varied number of coaching sessions on transfer into clinical practice following communication skills training

Background: Communication skills training has proven to be an effective means to enhance communication of health care professionals in oncology. These effects are well studied in standardized settings. The question of transferring these skills into clinical consultations remains open. We build up on a previous developed training concept consisting of a workshop and coaching. This training achieved a medium effect size in two studies with standardized patients. In the current study, we expanded and manualized the coaching concept, and we will evaluate effects of a varied number of coaching sessions on real clinical consultations. Our aim is to determine how much coaching oncologists need to transfer communication skills into clinical practice. Methods/design: Physicians of two German medical centers will participate in a workshop for communication skills and will be randomized to either a group with one coaching session or a group with four coaching sessions following the workshop. The participation is voluntary and the physicians will receive medical education points. Consultations held by the participating physicians with actual patients who gave their informed consent will be filmed at three time points. These consultations will be evaluated by blinded raters using a checklist based on the training content (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes will be the self-evaluated communication competence by physicians and an evaluation of the consultations by both physicians and patients. Discussion: We will evaluate our communication training concept on three levels - rater, physician and patient - and concentrate on the transfer of communication skills into real life situations. As we emphasize the external validity in this study design, limitations will be expected due to heterogeneity of data. With this study we aim to gain data on how to improve communication skills training that will result in better patient outcomes