Helen Dowling Institute, Centre for Psycho-oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Mar;82(3):377-83. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.018. Epub 2010 Dec 30.
When comparing the efficacy of different interventions for cancer patients, there should be certainty that these types are sufficiently different in the way they are actually presented. The aim of the present study is to develop a method for assessing differences between the content of social support groups and experiential-existential therapy groups.
Independent and blind raters assessed video fragments of both intervention types, using a self-developed checklist of five questions. This checklist was first evaluated by a group of experts for appropriateness, importance, and rateability.
Three out of the five questions were selected on the basis of these experts' evaluation and on inter-rater reliability. The scores on these questions were used to evaluate five social support groups and six experiential-existential therapy groups for breast cancer patients. According to the independent and blind raters the content of the two intervention forms appeared to be significantly different.
The assessment method we developed appeared reliable and valid.
Our assessment method is feasible as a check to compare the content of psycho-oncological interventions and can be easily adjusted into a test for other intervention types.
在比较不同干预措施对癌症患者的疗效时，应确保这些干预措施在实际呈现方式上存在足够的差异。本研究旨在开发一种评估社会支持小组和经验-存在治疗小组内容差异的方法。
独立且盲法的评估者使用自行设计的五个问题检查表评估两种干预类型的视频片段。该检查表首先由一组专家进行评估，以确定其适当性、重要性和可评估性。
基于这些专家的评估和组内信度，选择了五个问题中的三个。这些问题的得分用于评估五组社会支持小组和六组经验-存在治疗小组的乳腺癌患者。根据独立和盲法评估者的评估，两种干预形式的内容似乎存在显著差异。
我们开发的评估方法具有可靠性和有效性。
我们的评估方法是可行的，可以作为比较心理肿瘤学干预措施内容的检查方法，并且可以轻松调整为其他干预类型的测试。
