The Caregivers Quality of Life Cancer index scale (CQoLC): an exploratory factor analysis for validation in French cancer patients' spouses.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Caregivers Quality of Life Cancer index scale (CQoLC) in a sample of spouses of French cancer patients. METHODS: The CQoLC, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12 (MOS SF-12) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were administered to 300 spouses aged 21-85 years. Clinical data such as severity of cancer, medical treatment and duration of illness were obtained from a review of medical records. RESULTS: An exploratory factor analysis yielded a 23-item measure with one factor explaining 38.76% of the variance: labeled impairment of quality of life. The correlations between this factor and MOS SF-12 were negative for the physical component (ρ = -0.351, p < 0.001) and positive for the mental component (ρ = 0.184, p < 0.005). One-way ANOVA with STAI scores indicated good discriminant validity (F[2, 237] = 4.80, p < 0.01, η(2) = 0.04). Participants with low anxiety had a better quality of life than those with moderate and high anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the CQoLC has sufficient validity and reliability to assess the impairment of quality of life in spouses of French cancer patients.

Structural and reliability analysis of quality of relationship index in cancer patients.

Among psychosocial factors affecting emotional adjustment and quality of life, social support is one of the most important and widely studied in cancer patients, but little is known about the perception of support in specific significant relationships in patients with cancer. This study examined the psychometric properties of the Quality of Relationship Inventory (QRI) by evaluating its factor structure and its convergent and discriminant validity in a sample of cancer patients. A total of 388 patients completed the QRI. Convergent validity was evaluated by testing the correlations between the QRI subscales and measures of general social support, anxiety and depression symptoms. Discriminant validity was examined by testing group comparison. The QRI's longitudinal invariance across time was also tested. Principal axis factor analysis with promax rotation identified three factors accounting for 42.99% of variance: perceived social support, depth, and interpersonal conflict. Estimates of reliability with McDonald's ω coefficient were satisfactory for all the QRI subscales (ω ranging from 0.75 - 0.85). Satisfaction from general social support was negatively correlated with the interpersonal conflict subscale and positively with the depth subscale. The interpersonal conflict and social support scales were correlated with depression and anxiety scores. We also found a relative stability of QRI subscales (measured 3 months after the first evaluation) and differences between partner status and gender groups. The Quality of Relationship Inventory is a valid tool for assessing the quality of social support in a particular relationship with cancer patients.

Processing of Facial Expressions of Emotions and Pain in Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative pathology that disrupts processing of facial expressions of emotion. The impairment was demonstrated for negative emotions in tasks of matching, discriminating, and labeling facial expressions but no study has included the expression of pain in its protocol. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to study the processing of emotional facial expressions in AD with a particular interest in pain expression. METHODS: Twenty-seven controls, 15 mild AD patients, and 15 moderate AD patients had to perform four emotional tasks: identification of facial expressions, matching pain expressions, discriminating the intensity of pain expressions, and judging pain intensity. RESULTS: Some emotions were less efficiently recognized by AD patients compared to controls (p < 0.001), specifically fear from the mild stage (p < 0.05), pain and disgust from the moderate stage (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 respectively). The Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that recognition of pain and recognition of other discreet emotions were underpinned by two different latent factors. Performances on pain expression matching task and pain intensity discrimination task did not differ by group. (p = 0.334 and p = 0.787 respectively). Finally, moderate AD patients judged the pain less intensively than the Control group for both, moderate, and severe pain intensity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that AD disrupts the recognition of pain expression along with recognition of fear and disgust. Additionally, AD patients seem to underestimate pain intensity compared to controls. The self-rated pain scales should be adapted to the pain processing deficit of AD patients.