Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:01:36.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Supportive Care Needs Survey: A reliability generalization meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2023

Hyungran Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
Yubeen Jang
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
Younhee Jeong*
Affiliation:
College of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea East‐West Nursing Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
*
Author for correspondence: Younhee Jeong, College of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyunghee-daero, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02447, Korea. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to investigate the reliability generalization of 2 forms of the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS), the questionnaires commonly used to assess the unmet needs of cancer patients.

Methods

Reviewed articles were retrieved through databases including PubMed, Ovid, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria were quantitative studies that assessed the unmet needs of cancer patients using the SCNS and presented reliability coefficients with sample size. Two independent reviewers examined the studies according to inclusion criteria and quality. The final studies included in the meta-analysis were determined by consensus. A random effects model was adopted for the analysis. To estimate reliability coefficients, the alpha coefficients for each study were transformed into the Z statistic for normalization and back to alpha. The values were weighted by the inverse of the studies’ variance. The Higgins I2 statistic was used to test for heterogeneity, and the Egger’s test and funnel plot were performed to evaluate publication bias.

Results

Out of 12,522 studies, 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall mean weighted effect size of the SCNS long-form (LF) was 0.90 and the subdomains ranged from 0.90 to 0.97. The overall alpha for the SCNS short-form (SF) was 0.92, and the alphas for the subdomains were between 0.81 and 0.92. The estimated reliability coefficients in both LF and SF were highest in psychological and health information needs and lowest in sexuality. No publication bias was indicated in this study.

Significance of results

In this study, the overall reliability of SCNS was presented and the factors affecting the reliability of SCNS were identified. The results of this study may help clinicians or researchers make decisions about selecting tools to measure unmet needs of cancer patients.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Survival rates and incidence of cancer have increased due to advances in early diagnosis and treatment (Siegel et al. Reference Siegel, Miller and Fuchs2021; Sung et al. Reference Sung, Ferlay and Siegel2021). Now, cancer is considered to be a chronic disease (Bullard et al. Reference Bullard, Ji and An2019; Phillips and Currow Reference Phillips and Currow2010), and the important goals of the interventions for cancer patients have extended from survival to quality of life (Lee and Jeong Reference Lee and Jeong2019). To improve the quality of life of cancer patients, it is necessary to identify and solve the diverse needs of the patients during the full trajectory of cancer (Harrison et al. Reference Harrison, Young and Price2009) because unmet needs affect the quality of life of cancer patients (Jang and Jeong Reference Jang and Jeong2021). To manage the unmet needs of cancer patients, one of the most critical steps is to assess the patients’ needs accurately.

Valid and reliable tools are needed to identify unmet needs properly. There are various questionnaires for measuring unmet needs, and the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) is one of most widely used questionnaires globally. There are 2 types of the SCNS – long-form (LF) and short-form (SF). The SCNS was originally developed as a 59-item list, which was later named the long-form (SCNS-LF59). Later, a 34-item questionnaire, called SCNS-SF34 or short-form, was developed to lessen a responder’s burden by reducing the number of items while maintaining the psychometric properties of the long-form (Bonevski et al. Reference Bonevski, Sanson-Fisher and Girgis2000; Boyes et al. Reference Boyes, Girgis and Lecathelinais2009). Both SCNS-LF59 and SCNS-SF34 have 5 major subdomains, which are psychological, health systems and information, physical and daily living, patient care and support, and sexuality. SCNS-LF59 has 22 items in the psychological subdomain, 15 items in the health systems and information subdomain, 7 items in the physical and daily living subdomain, 8 items in the patient care and support subdomain, and 3 items in the sexuality subdomain (Bonevski et al. Reference Bonevski, Sanson-Fisher and Girgis2000). On the other hand, SCNS-SF34 has 10 items in the psychological subdomain, 11 items in the health systems and information subdomain, 5 items in the physical and daily living subdomain, 5 items in the patient care and support subdomain, and 3 items in the sexuality subdomain (Boyes et al. Reference Boyes, Girgis and Lecathelinais2009). Both SCNS forms use a 5-point response scale for each item: no need – not applicable; no need – already satisfied; low need; moderate need; or high need. The higher the score means the higher the unmet needs.

The SCNS-LF59 and SCNS-SF34 were developed in English originally. They have been translated into many languages and utilized in many countries. Bonevski et al. (Reference Bonevski, Sanson-Fisher and Girgis2000) developed SCNS-LF59 and reported that the Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.87 to 0.97, and the psychological subdomain presented the highest alpha and patient care and support and the sexuality subdomains showed the lowest alpha scores. In the development of SCNS-LF59, Boyes et al. (Reference Boyes, Girgis and Lecathelinais2009) reported that the alphas ranged from 0.86 to 0.96 and the highest alpha in the health systems and information subdomain compared to the lowest alpha in the physical and daily living subdomain. Both long- and short-forms have high reliability coefficient scores, but there was a difference between the 2 as to which domains have higher reliability. The studies using SCNS-LF59 or SCNS-SF34 presented various reliability coefficient scores, which ranged from 0.64 to 0.97. It is worth estimating the average reliability of SCNS-LF59 and SCNS-SF34 to give an insight to clinicians and researchers who plan to assess the unmet needs of cancer patients.

Cronbach’s alpha does not give the reliability of the tool itself but of sample-specific information. However, if reliability is reported consistently high or low over time, it informs empirical evidence for future research. Reliability generalization is an extension of the meta-analysis proposed by Vacha-Haase (Reference Vacha-Haase1998) and has been used to understand what factors affect the variability of reliability scores across the results by administrating the instruments (Vacha-Haase and Thompson Reference Vacha-Haase and Thompson2011). The purpose of this study was to examine the overall and subdomain reliability of SCNS-LF59 and SCNS-SF34 and identify moderators in reliability variability using reliability generalization meta-analysis. Study questions are as follows.

  • RQ1: What are the reliability scores of the SCNS long- and short-forms?

  • RQ2: Is there any variation in the reliability scores among studies depending on languages or study locations?

Methods

This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guideline (Page et al. Reference Page, McKenzie and Bossuyt2021). The preestablished review protocol was registered to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42021238584).

Search strategy

Reviewed studies for this study were searched through several databases, including PubMed, Ovid, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. The search terms used for database query were (“Cancer”[Title/Abstract] OR (“Cancer”[Title/Abstract] AND “Patient”[Title/Abstract]) OR “Neoplasms”[MeSH Terms]) AND (“unmet need”[Title/Abstract] OR (“unmet”[Title/Abstract] AND “need”[Title/Abstract])) AND (“questionnaire”[Title/Abstract] OR “Assessment”[Title/Abstract] OR “Tool”[Title/Abstract] OR “measurement”[Title/Abstract] OR “measur*”[Title/Abstract] OR “Scale”[Title/Abstract] OR “survey”[Title/Abstract] OR “instrument”[Title/Abstract] OR “checklist”[Title/Abstract] OR “evaluation”[Title/Abstract] OR “Needs Assessment Tool”[Title/Abstract] OR “Assessment Tool”[Title/Abstract] OR “Needs Assessment”[Title/Abstract] OR (“Needs Assessment”[MeSH Terms] OR “Surveys and Questionnaires”[MeSH Terms])) in PubMed, for example. We chose the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses to search gray literature such as unpublished thesis or dissertation papers. All studies satisfied the inclusion criteria, and studies published up to December 2020 were searched. There were no language restrictions on the search.

Study selection

A librarian extracted data through electronic database search based on the inclusion criteria. Two authors (Y. Jang and H. Lee) independently screened the electronic search results. Duplicate papers were excluded by a reference management software at first and then by comparing the records screened based on title, publication year, author name, and abstract. After excluding duplicates, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility by 2 authors (Y. Jeong and H. Lee) independently. The studies published in peer-reviewed journals or theses/dissertations from a university that reported reliability from the authors’ own data were included in the analysis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in detail are as follows:

Inclusion criteria

  • A quantitative study assessing the unmet needs of cancer patients using the SCNS

  • The reliability of the current study was reported

  • A sample size was reported

Exclusion criteria

  • The reliability of current study was not reported

  • Cronbach’s alpha value was not provided

  • Participants were not cancer patients

  • The questionnaire was substantially modified in terms of domains and items.

  • A sample size was not reported

  • Only partial subdomains were used

Disagreements between the authors were resolved by discussion. When study selection was completed, the following data were extracted: author, year of publication, countries in which the study was conducted, sample size, type of sample, reliability data, the number of SCNS items used in the study, and study design.

Quality assessment of included studies

Quality assessment for systematic review was independently conducted by 2 authors (Y. Jeong and H. Lee) using the quality rating scale based on Zangaro and Soeken (Reference Zangaro and Soeken2005). The scale is a total score of 10 and consists of 7 items, including research question, subjects in sample, setting, method of data collection, response rate, measurement instrument, and reliability. The range of the scores was classified as low (0–4), moderate (5–7), or high (8–10) quality as suggested by Zangaro and Soeken (Reference Zangaro and Soeken2005). Two independent review authors (Y. Jeong and H. Lee) decided the final studies to be included in meta-analysis.

Data synthesis and analysis

This study was designed to generalize the reliability of the SCNS using a meta-analysis. All analyses were performed using R Statistical Software using R version 4.0.2 (R Core Team 2021) and RStudio version 1.4.1 (RStudio Team 2020) with “meta” (Balduzzi et al. Reference Balduzzi, Rücker and Schwarzer2019) and “metafor” (Viechtbauer Reference Viechtbauer2010) packages. To estimate the overall alpha of all the selected studies, the alpha coefficient in each study was transformed into the Fisher’s Z for normalization. After obtaining the average transformed score, it was transformed back to alpha. A random effects model was used, and the values were weighted by the inverse of the studies’ variance. To measure heterogeneity, Higgins I 2 statistics were performed. I 2 values ≥75% means high heterogeneity (Higgins et al. Reference Higgins, Thompson and Deeks2003). To explore categorial moderator, subgroup analyses were performed using the meta-analysis of variance (meta-ANOVA), which are the same with meta-regression with a categorical predictor (Harrer et al. Reference Harrer, Cuijpers and Furukawa2021, 198). According to the model selection flowchart suggested by Borenstein et al. (Reference Borenstein, Hedges and Higgins2009, 163), we used random effect model with a pooled estimate of τ 2 for meta-ANAOVA. The pooled estimate methods is “pooling Q values and degree of freedom within subgroups, estimating τ 2 from pooled values and utilizing the pool estimates of τ 2 for all subgroups” (Borenstein et al. Reference Borenstein, Hedges and Higgins2009, 162). When meta-ANOVA results were statistically significant and more than 2 subgroups existed in the moderator, post hoc tests were done by pair-wise meta-ANOVA analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by checking the level of visualized symmetricity in the funnel plot and Egger’s test.

Results

We identified a total of 12,522 records and finally selected 46 studies for a systematic review and 26 studies for meta-analysis (Figure 1). The characteristics and quality of the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis are listed in Table 1.

Fig. 1. Flow diagram.

Table 1. Characteristics, quality rating, and reliability scores of individual studies (k = 26)

Subdomains: C, patient care and support; D, physical and daily living; H, high; M, moderate; I, health system and information; S, sexuality; and P, psychological.

Cancer characteristics: BRCA, breast cancer; CRC, colorectal cancer; ECA, esophageal cancer; GC, gastric cancer; GICA, gastrointestinal cancer; Gyn, gynecological; HCA, hematological cancer; HNC, head and neck cancer; LCA, lung cancer; and NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer.

Study characteristics

The 46 studies analyzed in this study were published between 2000 and 2020. Five studies used SCNS-LF59, and 41 studies utilized SCNS-SF34. The locations of studies were Amman, Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, UAE, and the UK. The sample sizes vary between 25 and 1,106 (mean 329.13 and median 236). The reliability coefficients for SCNS of all 46 studies reported was Cronbach’s alpha. Twenty of the 46 studies did not present each reliability coefficients of subdomains but showed ranges only. Thirteen studies reported overall alpha only, while 11 studies reported each subdomain alphas. Two studies reported alphas of overall and each subdomain of SNCS-SF34. Based on the 46 studies, the lowest reliability scores reported for SCNS-LF59 and SCNS-SF34 was 0.73 and 0.56, respectively. Quality rating of 46 studies was mostly over 8 points, which was classified as high quality except for 4 studies with 7 points. Twenty-six studies reported that alpha scores of overall or each subdomain were included in final reliability generalization meta-analysis (Table 1).

Pooled results of reliability

Reliability of SCNS-LF59

Out of 5 selected studies, 2 studies presented the overall reliability of SCNS-LF59. The pooled reliability was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.99). However, high heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 100 %, p < 0.001; see Figure 2A).

Reliability of SCNS-LF59 subdomains

Out of the 5 selected studies, 3 studies presented the reliability values of SCNS-LF59 subdomains. The pooled reliability of the subdomains ranged from 0.90 in the physical and daily living and sexuality (95% CI: 0.89, 0.91 and 0.86, 0.92, respectively) domains to 0.97 in the psychological domain (95% CI: 0.97, 0.97), as shown in Figure 2. The psychological and physical and daily living domains showed homogeneity, while the other subdomains showed high heterogeneity (I 2 = 83−98%, p < 0.001; see Figure 2BF).

Fig. 2. Forest plots (SCNS-LF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health systems and information; D, Physical and daily living; E, Patient care and support; F, Sexuality; and F, Sexuality.

Forest plots (SCNS-LF)

Reliability of SCNS-SF34

Thirteen studies among 21 studies presented overall reliability of SCNS-SF34. The pooled reliability was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.94). However, high heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 97%, p < 0.001; see Figure 3A).

Reliability of SCNS-SF34 subdomains

Ten studies presented the reliability values of the SCNS-SF34 subdomains. Li et al. (Reference Li, Lam and Shun2013) reported the results separately for each region, so the analysis was conducted separately. The pooled reliability of the subdomains ranged from 0.81 (sexuality, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.86) to 0.92 (psychological and health information), as shown in Figure 3. However, high heterogeneity was observed in all subdomains (I 2 = 93−97%, p < 0.001; see Figure 3BF).

Fig. 3. Forest plots (SCNS-SF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health information; D, Daily living; E, Patient care; and F, Sexuality.

Moderator analysis

Moderator analysis was done for SCNS-SF34 using meta-ANOVA. Mediators for subgroup analysis were language and location. We compared the differences in alpha coefficients between original language (English) of the SCNS and the translated version (non-English) to explore the effect of translation invariance on heterogeneity. We also compared the differences between study locations. We originally speculated culture or country as a moderator, and it was not possible to test in this study due to the small sample size. We eventually analyzed subgroup difference by continent. The results are presented in Table 2. Language and location were significantly different between subgroups in the health systems and information as well as the physical and daily living subdomains. In the physical and daily living subdomain, there was a subgroup difference only between Asia and Oceania.

Table 2. Results of the moderator analyses

Note:

* p < 0.05.

Publication bias

Because the number of studies using SCNS-LF59 is too small, it is not appropriate to test publication bias. Figure 4 visualizes the level of publication bias for the analyzed studies for SCNS-SF34 through the funnel plot. According to the Egger’s regression test, the funnel plot remained symmetrical in the overall (bias = 0.9228, t = 0.24, df = 11, p = 0.812), psychological (bias = 0.310, t = 0.08, df = 9, p = 0.941), health systems and information (bias = −0.759, t = −0.16, df = 9, p = 0.874), physical and daily living (bias = 0.870, t = 0.30, df = 9, p = 0.771), patient care and support (bias = −1.698, t = −0.50, df = 9, p = 0.630), and sexuality (bias = 2.808, t = 0.63, df = 9, p = 0.544) subdomains.

Fig. 4. Funnel plots (SCNS-SF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health information; D, Daily living; E, Patient care; and F, Sexuality.

Sensitivity test

We performed sensitivity test to explore studies contributing to influence on effect sizes. A post hoc influential analysis was done by omitting studies one by one. Sensitivity analysis showed stable results (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. Sensitivity tests (SCNS-SF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health information; D, Daily living; E, Patient care; and F, Sexuality.

Discussion

In this study, we performed reliability generalization of SCNS-LF and SCNS-SF and tested whether there were any differences in reliability depending on language and location. In this study, we examined pooled reliability coefficients of overall and subdomains. It seems that the overall alpha value or the alpha value of the subdomain has been presented depending on whether the whole is viewed as a single structure or whether each of the multidimensional subdomains has its own focus. The authors who developed SCNS-LS and SCNS-SF did not report overall alpha scores but reported the alpha scores for each subdomain. Therefore, the authors may weigh internal consistency reliability within each subdomain more than overall reliability. However, many studies using SCNS reported overall reliability with or without subdomain reliabilities. There is an opinion that alpha should be applied when a scale is unidimensional (Dunn et al. Reference Dunn, Baguley and Brunsden2014), while another opinion exists that reliabilities of overall and subdomains may need to be reported (Cho and Kim Reference Cho and Kim2015). Which reliability to report or not is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, we analyzed reliability coefficients of both overall and subdomains as they were reported in selected studies.

The results showed that the average Cronbach’s alpha values of overall and each subdomain of SCNS-LF were greater than 0.9. For SCNS-SF, overall Cronbach’s alpha was greater than 0.9, and the alpha values of subdomains were greater than 0.81. Although there is no definite cutoff values of alpha (Taber Reference Taber2018), reports showed that alpha values 0.7 or above are satisfactory, while a higher value over 0.90 is needed for clinical application (Bland and Altman Reference Bland and Altman1997) or the values of 0.8 or higher were reasonable (Gliem and Gliem Reference Gliem and Gliem2003). Therefore, it suggests that the average alpha coefficients of both SCNS-LF and SCNS-SF are acceptable levels. More studies have used SCNS-SF rather than SCNS-LF. One of the reasons is that the number of SCNS-SF items is small, which ultimately reduces the burden and fatigue of research participants. In general, alpha decreases as the number of items is reduced (Schrepp Reference Schrepp2020). However, the alpha values of SCNS-SF did not decrease dramatically even though the number of items decreased by 25 compared to the SCNS-LF. This might be another reason for researchers to choose SCNS-SF over SCNS-LF.

The results of this meta-analysis presented that the reliability of a specific subdomain was lower than other subdomains. Although the alpha coefficients of all subdomains in SCNS-LF and SCNS-SF were acceptable levels, the sexuality subdomain in both types of SCNS showed the lowest alpha values. Possible causes of a low Cronbach’s alpha value are small number of items, or low correlation between items, or mixed construct (Tavakol and Dennick Reference Tavakol and Dennick2011). The reason of low alpha values of sexuality may be the number of items because this domain has the smallest number of questions.

To identify whether there are any differences in reliability coefficients by language and location, we performed moderator analysis on SCNS-SF. There were no statistical differences in reliability values between original language and translated languages in version except health systems and information as well as physical and daily living subdomains. Based on this result, language may be a cause for heterogeneity in the reliability values. However, the differences were also found in the same 2 subdomains, health systems and information and physical and daily living, based on location. It is not clear that the differences are based on translation, locations, or both. Further analyses are needed in the future.

One of the limitations of this paper is that reliability generalization was performed based solely on Cronbach’s alpha. The reason we analyzed reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha was because it was the only reliability reported in selected papers. Cronbach’s alpha, also called Cronbach’s coefficient alpha or coefficient alpha, is one type of reliability. Types of reliability are classified into internal consistency, test–retest, and inter-rater reliability (Charter Reference Charter2003). Cronbach’s alpha is the most widely used measurement statistics of internal consistency reliability but is not the one and only reliability coefficient. However, most papers have reported Cronbach’s alpha without explanation of the reason to choose the alpha despite there being alternatives to alpha (Sijtsma Reference Sijtsma2009). There are controversial views of use of Cronbach’s alpha. Some researchers criticize that Cronbach’s alpha is problematic, while others support the merits of Cronbach’s alpha (Raykov and Marcoulides Reference Raykov and Marcoulides2019). In addition, there are opinions to report whether the assumption of tau-equivalence was met or not to estimate Cronbach’s alpha accurately (Graham Reference Graham2006). However, it has not been commonly reported in published papers whether the assumptions were met. It suggests that various reliability coefficients may be considered based on what to measure, and the assumptions to estimate reliability should be reported if it is required. Another limitation is that we could not analyze other moderators, such as gender, age, and disease-related characteristics of study population, due to small number of studies.

We recommend that researchers report the reliability coefficients of their own study. Surprisingly, we found some researchers did not report the alpha of their own study but described the alpha values that the original authors of the SCNS reported in their study. We also found some researchers did not report reliability coefficients at all. In addition, some papers presented the range of alpha instead of the alphas of each subdomain. When reporting alphas of subdomains, we suggest researchers to report reliability thoroughly. We also recommend in future studies to compare generalized reliability coefficients with other tools measuring unmet needs.

Conclusion

Through the reliability generalization, the pooled Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of both SCNS-LF and SCNS-SF presented acceptable reliability estimates. Language and location may be factors that affect reliability in the health systems and information and physical and daily living subdomains.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the librarian, Ms. Yoonhee Choi for data extraction.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

References

Balduzzi, S, Rücker, G and Schwarzer, G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evidence-Based Mental Health 22(4), 153160. doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, JM and Altman, DG (1997) Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314(7080), . doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonevski, B, Sanson-Fisher, R, Girgis, A, et al. (2000) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 88(1), 217225. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000101)88:1<217::AID-CNCR29>3.0.CO;2-Y3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borenstein, M, Hedges, LV, Higgins, JPT, et al. (2009) Subgroup Analyses. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 149186.Google Scholar
Boyes, A, Girgis, A and Lecathelinais, C (2009) Brief assessment of adult cancer patients’ perceived needs: Development and validation of the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15(4), 602606. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01057.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullard, T, Ji, M, An, R, et al. (2019) A systematic review and meta-analysis of adherence to physical activity interventions among three chronic conditions: Cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. BMC Public Health 19(1), . doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6877-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charter, RA (2003) A breakdown of reliability coefficients by test type and reliability method, and the clinical implications of low reliability. The Journal of General Psychology 130(3), 290304. doi:10.1080/00221300309601160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, E and Kim, S (2015) Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods 18(2), 207230. doi:10.1177/1094428114555994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, TJ, Baguley, T and Brunsden, V (2014) From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology 105(3), 399412. doi:10.1111/bjop.12046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gliem, JA, and Gliem, RR (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Graham, JM (2006) Congeneric and (Essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(6), 930944. doi:10.1177/0013164406288165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrer, M, Cuijpers, P, Furukawa, TA, et al. (2021) Doing Meta-analysis with R: A Hands-on Guide. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.10.1201/9781003107347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, JD, Young, JM, Price, MA, et al. (2009) What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer? A systematic review. Supportive Care in Cancer 17(8), 11171128. doi:10.1007/s00520-009-0615-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, et al. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414), 557560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jang, Y and Jeong, Y (2021) Unmet needs and quality of life of cancer patients and their families: Actor-partner interdependence modeling. Healthcare (Basel) 9(7), . doi:10.3390/healthcare9070874Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, JL and Jeong, Y (2019) Quality of life in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: Structural equation modeling. Cancer Nursing 42(6), 475483. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000645CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, WWY, Lam, WWT, Shun, S-C, et al. (2013) Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34-C) among Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese colorectal cancer patients. PLoS One 8(10), . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075755Google ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.Google ScholarPubMed
Phillips, JL and Currow, DC (2010) Cancer as a chronic disease. Collegian 17(2), 4750. doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2010.04.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raykov, T and Marcoulides, GA (2019) Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement 79(1), 200210. doi:10.1177/0013164417725127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC.Google Scholar
Schrepp, M (2020) On the usage of Cronbach’s alpha to measure reliability of UX scales. Journal of Usability Studies 15(4), 247258.Google Scholar
Siegel, RL, Miller, KD, Fuchs, HE, et al. (2021) Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 71(1), 733. doi:10.3322/caac.21654Google Scholar
Sijtsma, K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74(1), 107120. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sung, H, Ferlay, J, Siegel, RL, et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 71(3), 209249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660Google ScholarPubMed
Taber, KS (2018) The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education 48(6), 12731296. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakol, M and Dennick, R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education 2, 5355. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfdCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vacha-Haase, T (1998) Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58(1), 620. doi:10.1177/0013164498058001002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vacha-Haase, T and Thompson, B (2011) Score reliability: A retrospective look back at 12 years of reliability generalization studies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 44(3), 159168. doi:10.1177/0748175611409845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viechtbauer, W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36(3), 148. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangaro, GA and Soeken, KL (2005) Meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of Part B of the Index of Work Satisfaction across studies. Journal of Nursing Measurement 13(1), 722. doi:10.1891/jnum.2005.13.1.7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Flow diagram.

Figure 1

Table 1. Characteristics, quality rating, and reliability scores of individual studies (k = 26)

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Forest plots (SCNS-LF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health systems and information; D, Physical and daily living; E, Patient care and support; F, Sexuality; and F, Sexuality.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Forest plots (SCNS-SF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health information; D, Daily living; E, Patient care; and F, Sexuality.

Figure 4

Table 2. Results of the moderator analyses

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Funnel plots (SCNS-SF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health information; D, Daily living; E, Patient care; and F, Sexuality.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Sensitivity tests (SCNS-SF). A, Overall; B, Psychological; C, Health information; D, Daily living; E, Patient care; and F, Sexuality.