Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON-31): Principal components analysis and clinimetric properties

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 106, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 799-806

  Temple Oberle, Claire F ^a   Cook, E Francis ^b   Bettger Hahn, Margo ^c   Mychailyshyn, Nadia ^d   Naeem, Hina ^d   MacDermid, Joy ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c ST JOSEPH S HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

breast; cancer; instrument; patient rated; reconstruction; satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE;

AGE FACTORS; BODY IMAGE; BREAST DISEASES; CLIMACTERIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT PROJECTS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF CONCEPT;

EID: 84868362937     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23114     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Temple CLF, Tse R, Bettger-Hahn M, et al.: Sensibility following innervated free TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 2119-2127.
2. Temple CLF, Ross DC, Kim S, et al.: Sensibility following Innervated Free TRAM Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Part II. Innervation improves patient-rated quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1419-1425.
3. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, et al.: Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 823-837.
4. Lee C, Sunu C, Pignone M, et al.: Patient-reported outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A systematic review. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 209: 123-133.
5. Nassar-McMillan SC, Borders LD:, " Use of focus groups in survey item development. The Qualitative Report." Vol 7, No 1. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-1/nassar.html 2002 March.
6. Carmines EG, Zeller RA:, Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1979.
7. Marx RG, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson S, et al.: How should importance and severity ratings be combined for item reduction in the development of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 193-197.
8. Temple CL, Cook EF, Ross DC, et al.: Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON): Dimensionality and clinical importance of breast symptoms, donor site issues, patient expectations, and relationships. J Surg Oncol 2010; 101: 209-216.
9. Devellis RF:, Scale development-Theory and applications, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.
10. Streiner DL, Norman GR:, Health measurement scales-A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
11. Kane RL:, Understanding health care outcomes research, 2nd edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2006.
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2006. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/ucm071975.pdf
13. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster. com
14. Woodward C, Chambers L:, Guide to questionnaire construction and question writing. Ottawa, ON: The Canadian Public Health Association; 1980.
15. Kim JO, Mueller CW:, Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1978.
16. Kim JO, Mueller CW:, Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1978.
17. Sprangers AAG, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al.: The European organization for research and treatment of cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a Three-Country Study. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2756-2768.
18. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al.: Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 974-986.
19. King MT, Kenny P, Shiell A, et al.: Quality of life three months and one year after first treatment for early stage breast cancer: Influence of treatment and patient characteristics. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 789-800.
20. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, et al.: Determinants of patient satisfaction in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 769-776.
21. Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC, et al.: Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: One-year postoperative results from the Michigan breast reconstruction outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 1014-1025.
22. Baxter NN, Goodwin PJ, Mcleod RS, et al.: Reliability and validity of the body image after breast cancer questionnaire. Breast J 2007; 12: 221-232.
23. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al.: Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 345-353.
24. Davies AH, Brophy CM, editors. Vascular surgery. New York, NY: Springer; 2006.
25. Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD:, Quality of health care. Part 2: Measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 966-970.
26. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR:, Some issues in the measurement of patient satisfaction with health care services, Report no P-6021. Santa Monica, CA: Rand; 1977.
27. Black N, Sanderson C:, Day surgery: Development of a questionnaire for eliciting patients' experiences. Qual Health Care 1993; 2: 157-161.