Ovarian and cervical cancer awareness: development of two validated measurement tools

Background The aim of the study was to develop and validate measures of awareness of symptoms and risk factors for ovarian and cervical cancer (Ovarian and Cervical Cancer Awareness Measures). Methods Potentially relevant items were extracted from the literature and generated by experts. Four validation studies were carried out to establish reliability and validity. Women aged 21–67 years (n=146) and ovarian and cervical cancer experts (n=32) were included in the studies. Internal reliability was assessed psychometrically. Test-retest reliability was assessed over a 1-week interval. To establish construct validity, Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) scores of cancer experts were compared with equally well-educated comparison groups. Sensitivity to change was tested by randomly assigning participants to read either a leaflet giving information about ovarian/cervical cancer or a leaflet with control information, and then completing the ovarian/cervical CAM. Results Internal reliability (Cronbach's α=0.88 for the ovarian CAM and α=0.84 for the cervical CAM) and test-retest reliability (r=0.84 and r=0.77 for the ovarian and cervical CAMs, respectively) were both high. Validity was demonstrated with cancer experts achieving higher scores than controls [ovarian CAM: t(36)= –5.6, p<0.001; cervical CAM: t(38)= –3.7, p=0.001], and volunteers who were randomised to read a cancer leaflet scored higher than those who received a control leaflet [ovarian CAM: t(49)=7.5, p<0.001; cervical CAM: t(48)= –5.5, p<0.001]. Conclusions This study demonstrates the psychometric properties of the ovarian and cervical CAMs and supports their utility in assessing ovarian and cervical cancer awareness in the general population.

[1]  P. Kline Handbook of Psychological Testing , 2013 .

[2]  E. Elbasha,et al.  PGI18 Cost-Effectiveness of Boceprevir in Combination With Pegylated Interferon Alfa and Ribavirin for the Treatment of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C: Submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) , 2012 .

[3]  M. Richards,et al.  The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England: assembling the evidence , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[4]  D. Forman,et al.  Cancer survival in England and the influence of early diagnosis: what can we learn from recent EUROCARE results? , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[5]  J Waller,et al.  Development of a measurement tool to assess public awareness of cancer , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[6]  A. Miller,et al.  The importance of early symptom recognition in the context of early detection and cancer survival. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[7]  T. Peters,et al.  Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population based case-control study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Arnold Knijn,et al.  EUROCARE-4. Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995-1999. Results and commentary. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[9]  B. Hentschel,et al.  Tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage II cervical cancer. , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[10]  Markus K. Brunnermeier,et al.  The Gambler's and Hot-Hand Fallacies: Theory and Applications , 2007 .

[11]  Nancy Breen,et al.  Cancer Knowledge and Disparities in the Information Age , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[12]  R. Kimmig,et al.  Moderate progress for ovarian cancer in the last 20 years: prolongation of survival, but no improvement in the cure rate. , 2002, European journal of cancer.

[13]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha , 1997 .

[14]  R. Devellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[15]  P. Kline The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd ed. , 1993 .