Skip to main content

Table 4 SEQ-G-CSF Item History

From: Development and content validation of the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (SEQ-G-CSF)

Version 1 Instrument Revisions Rationale for Change
Title: Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire Core (SEQ-CORE)
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF)
No change • Include version number in title.
Instructions: Please read each question and select one response regarding the most recent G-CSF session, if you are currently taking G-CSF. Revised • Patients were not familiar with the term G-CSF. Recommend explaining what G-CSF stands for, methods of administration, and time frame (referring to the most recent treatment) for answering the questions.
Item 1
Overall, how tolerable was the G-CSF prophylaxis you received?
Revised • Patients preferred direct and personal language.
• Patients preferred “preventive” rather than “prophylaxis.”
• Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Revise response categories to match concept. For example, “tolerate very poorly,” “tolerate poorly,” etc.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as item 2.
• Recommend replacing throughout “G-CSF treatment” to “preventive treatment.”
Item 2
How convenient or inconvenient was the G-CSF treatment to schedule?
No change • Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Change response option 3 to “A little inconvenient” for ease of scoring.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 3.
Item 3
How convenient or inconvenient was the G-CSF treatment to receive?
Revised • Patients preferred rewording the item for easier readability.
• Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Change response option 3 to “A little inconvenient” for ease of scoring.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 6.
Item 4
How bothered are you by how long it took to receive the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Patients preferred rewording the item for easier readability.
• Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Recommend revising to 5-point Likert scale to match other items.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 7.
Item 5
How convenient or inconvenient was travelling to receive the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Patients recommended wording changes.
• Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Change response option 3 to “A little inconvenient” for ease of scoring.
Item 6
How convenient was it to make travel arrangements to receive the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Change response option 3 to “A little inconvenient” for ease of scoring.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 4.
Item 7
How much time did you gain due to less administration frequency of G-CSF?
Revised • Patients had difficulty understanding the question/item concept.
• Omit from final SEQ-G-CSF.
Item 8
How much time did the G-CSF treatment take away from your daily activities (household duties, recreational activities, etc.)?
Revised • Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Revise to 5-point Likert scale to match other items.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 9.
Item 9
Did you take the most recent prescribed G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Recommend adding a clarifying statement with “No” response.
• Yes (Skip to question 2)
• No (Continue to question 1a)
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 1.
Item 9a
If “No” to Question 9, why did you miss the most recent G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Remove skip statement as it is already included in Item 1.
• Remove open-ended option.
• Patients provided response options.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 1a.
Item 9b
If “No” to Question 9, how concerned are you that you missed the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Remove skip statement as it is already included in Item 1.
• Add reference to time frame, referring to the most recent treatment.
• Revise to 5-point Likert scale to match other items.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 1b.
Item 10
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Recommend adding “overall” to the item to distinguish from “most recent” items.
• Change response option 3 to “A little dissatisfied” for ease of scoring.
Item 11
Overall, would you recommend the G-CSF treatment to another patient?
Revised • Recommend replacing “G-CSF treatment” with “method of administration”.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 13.
Item 12
Overall, how would you rate the experience with the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Revise to 5-point Likert scale to match other items.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 11.
Item 13
How would you rate the overall change in your health condition since you began the G-CSF treatment?
Revised • Revise to 5-point Likert scale to match other items.
• Change chronological order: renumbered as Item 12.
  New • Add new item (Item 8) to capture “satisfaction” related to time spent receiving treatment.
  1. Except for the introductory text, the G-CSF abbreviation was removed from the final SEQ-G-CSF