EORTC SHQ-C22 (Phase IV)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
An international field study testing the reliability and validity of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Sexual Health Questionnaire (EORTC SHQ-C22) for assessing sexual health in cancer patients
IRAS ID
203484
Contact name
Anne Lanceley
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University College London
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
Z6364106/2016/08/40 cancer research, UCL Data Protection Number
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 11 months, 27 days
Research summary
Cancer and cancer treatment are frequently associated with sexual dysfunction. Estimates of sexual dysfunction in this patient group have ranged from 40% to nearly 100%, indicating such issues are widespread and impact on quality of life. Unlike other after-effects of treatment, sexual problems do not tend to resolve within the first year or two of survival. Therefore it is important that questionnaires that measure sexual well-being for cancer patients are available to help inform clinical practice and treatment choices. More specifically these questionnaires need to be reliable and valid. Reliability relates to whether the same concept will be measured time and time again (consistency), and validity relates to whether the questionnaire is actually measuring what it says it does (appropriateness).
Previous research (Phases 1 & 2) produced a list of sexual dysfunction issues that were seen to be relevant by cancer patients themselves. Preliminary research tested the questionnaire's acceptable and appropriateness with patients (Phase 3).
The aim of this study (Phase 4) is to further test this questionnaire, specifically looking at the reliability and validity of the EORTC Sexual Health Questionnaire (EORTC SHQ-C22) for independent use or to be used with the previously validated EORTC- C30 module.
Patients with different cancers and at different points in their cancer treatment and recovery will be recruited and asked to complete the two quality of life questionnaires and take part in a short interview with the researcher. The results will be analysed to see if the new instrument is reliable across cancer types, in men and women and is sensitive to change across time.
REC name
London - Hampstead Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/1692
Date of REC Opinion
20 Oct 2016
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion