Skip to main content

Table 4 Radiotherapists' perspectives on the usefulness and feasibility of the SIPP

From: The usefulness and feasibility of a screening instrument to identify psychosocial problems in patients receiving curative radiotherapy: a process evaluation

  Scores: theoretical range n Mean score (SD) Scores: observed
range
Negative
perspective (%)c
Score ≤ 4
Moderate
perspective (%)c
Score 5, 6
Positive
perspective
(%)c
Score ≥ 7
After first consultation for each patient        
1. The screening instrument invited to ask about the patient's psychosocial well-being 0 (Not used) -
10 (Fully used)
146 5.9 (2.8) 0-10 17.8 6.2 30.3
2. The scores gave better insight into the patient's psychosocial well being 0(Less insight) -
10(Very much insight)
146 6.5 (2.4) 0-10 12.3 4.1 36.2
3. Exchanging information about the subjects in the screening instrument gave better insight into the patient's psychosocial well being 0(Less insight) -
10(Very much insight)
146 6.3 (2.6) 0-10 16.2 4.1 34.4
4. Time required to discuss the instrument Open question (minutes) 142 4.3 (2.5) 0-15 ---- ---- ----
More generally        
5. Contribution of using the screening instrument for discussing physical complaints 0 (No contribution) -
10 (Very good contribution)
6a
6b
3.2 (3.2)
3.5 (3.7)
0-7
0-8
66.7
66.7
0.0
0.0
33.3
33.3
6. Contribution of using the screening instrument for discussing psychosocial complaints 0 (No contribution) -
10 (Very good contribution)
6 a
6 b
4.7 (3.9)
3.7 (3.9)
0-8
0-9
50.0
66.7
0.0
0.0
50.0
33.3
7. Contribution of using the screening instrument for discussing sexual problems 0(No contribution)-
10(Very good contribution)
6 a
6 b
3.7 (4.0)
3.5 (4.4)
0-9
0-10
66.7
66.7
0.0
0.0
33.3
33.3
8. Usefulness of discussing (the scores on) the screening instrument 0(Not useful)-
10(Very useful)
6 a
6 b
4.8 (4.0)
4.0 (4.2)
0-9
0-9
33.3
66.7
16.7
0.0
50.1
33.3
9. Discussing (the scores on) the screening instrument with the patient was pleasant 0(Not pleasant)-
10(Very pleasant)
6 a
5 b
4.3 (3.5)
6.0 (4.1)
0-8
0-10
33.3
33.4
33.4
0.0
33.3
33.4
10. Contribution of discussing the screening instrument to a better quality of consultation 0(No positive contribution) -
10(Very positive contribution)
5 a
5 b
5.4 (3.4)
4.4 (4.0)
0-9
0-9
40.0
50.1
0.0
0.0
60.0
33.4
11. Indication of the scores for referring patients to social caregivers 0(No good indication)-
10(Very good indication)
---
5 b
---
4.2 (3.7)
---
0-9
---
24.9
---
0.0
---
16.6
12. Changing communication style
by using the screening instrument
0(No changing)-
10(Changing)
---
6 b
---
1.5 (2.1)
---
0-5
---
41.6
---
8.3
---
0.0
13. Feasibility of using the screening instrument during consultations for patients to bring up psychosocial problems 0(Not feasible)-
10(Feasible)
---
6 b
---
3.8 (3.9)
---
0-9
---
33.3
---
0.0
---
16.6
Open questions for remarks        
14. Is there a subject that was missing from the screening instrument? No-Yes, namely... 2 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
15. Have you any remarks? No-Yes, namely... 2 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
  1. SD: Standard deviation
  2. a First measurement, 7 months after the start of the study
  3. b Second measurement with 3 additional items (item 7-9), 13 months after the start of the study
  4. c Due to possible missing values for several items, not all the scores add up to 100%