Loading…
Development and validation of the chronic hepatitis C virus treatment satisfaction (HCVTSat) instrument
Summary Background While current medications used to treat patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) effectively produce sustained viral response (SVR), postponement of therapy is oftentimes attributed to patient perceptions of unfavourable outcomes. However, an instrument to assess patient perc...
Saved in:
Published in: | Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2013-03, Vol.37 (5), p.573-582 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Summary
Background
While current medications used to treat patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) effectively produce sustained viral response (SVR), postponement of therapy is oftentimes attributed to patient perceptions of unfavourable outcomes. However, an instrument to assess patient perceptions of therapy (i.e. treatment satisfaction) has not been developed.
Aim
To describe the development and validation the chronic Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Satisfaction (HCVTSat) instrument.
Methods
Focus groups, expert review and cognitive debriefing were used to develop a draft 37‐item instrument (scale: 1 = not important at all; 5 = extremely important). The preliminary instrument was administered to a pre‐test sample of 145 patients through Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. A refined HCVTSat was administered to a main sample of 333 participants with a chronic HCV diagnosis through Harris Interactive.
Results
The HCVTSat was completed by 333 participants with an average age of 51 (s.d. = 12.1) years, 55% male, current or previous HCV treatment experience, and a diagnosis of HCV for approximately 12 (s.d. = 8.9) years. Twelve items for the 3 dimensions, Treatment Experience (TE), Side Effects (SE) and Social Aspects (SA), were internally consistent (Cronbach's α range: 0.70–0.90), responsive and valid. Confirmatory factor analysis (goodness‐of‐fit indexes: χ2 = 20.9, df = 23, P = 0.59; CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.99, TFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.001) revealed a better fit with 9 items. All path coefficients were significant (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0269-2813 1365-2036 |
DOI: | 10.1111/apt.12202 |