Curr Health Sci J, vol. 52, no. 3, 2026
Reliability and Validity of the Greek Version of the Needs Assessment Tool for Family Caregivers of Cancer Patients
[Original Paper]
V. SAKELLARIOU(1), I. TSATSOU(1), M. MANTZOROU(1), N. SKANDALAKI(2), O. GOVINA(1), T. I. KONSTANTINIDIS(3)
(1)Postgraduate Program "Chronic Disease Management", Department of Nursing, University of West Attica, 12243, Egaleo, Greece;
(2)Department of Nursing, General Hospital of Heraklion Venizeleio, 714 09, Heraklion, Crete, Greece;
(3)Department of Nursing, Hellenic Mediterranean University, 71410, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Abstract:
Background: Cancer deeply impacts family caregivers, leading to significant burden, unmet needs, and a decline in their overall quality of life. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Greek version of the Needs Assessment Tool for Family Caregivers-Cancer (NAFC-C). Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary anticancer hospital in Athens involving a convenience sample of 100 caregivers. Participants completed the Greek version of the 27-item NAFC-C and the revised Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale (BCOS). Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for test-retest stability. Validity was assessed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and correlation with the BCOS. Results: Participants were primarily female (72%), married (74%), and most frequently the patient’s spouse (44%).The CFA confirmed that the four-factor model, comprising psychosocial, medical, financial, and daily unmet needs, provided an excellent fit for the Greek population. Strong positive correlations were observed between these factors, particularly between psychosocial and medical unmet needs (r=0.99). Convergent validity was confirmed through a moderate but significant negative correlation between the total NAFC-C score and the BCOS scale (r=-0.35, p<0.001) indicating that higher unmet needs were associated with less favorable caregiving outcomes. The instrument also demonstrated high internal consistency, with a total Cronbach’s alpha of 0.894 and individual factor alphas ranging from 0.601 to 0.755.Additionally, test-retest reliability was confirmed with ICC values for the 27 items ranging from 0.51 to 0.95 (p<0.05), demonstrating strong stability over time. Conclusion: The Greek version of the NAFC-C is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the diverse needs of informal cancer caregivers. Its implementation in clinical practice can help healthcare professionals identify overlooked caregiver needs and improve the overall quality of care for both patients and their families in the Greek healthcare system.
Keywords: Caregivers, cancer, needs assessment tool for family caregivers (nafc-c), reliability, validity.
Corresponding: Ioanna Tsatsou, Nursing Department, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece, e-mail: itsatsou@uniwa.gr
DOI 10.12865/CHSJ.52.03.07 - Download PDF Reliability and Validity of the Greek Version of the Needs Assessment Tool for Family Caregivers of Cancer Patients PDF
Download coverDownload contents
Journal archive
- vol. 52 no. 2, 2026
- vol. 52 no. 1, 2026
- vol. 51 no. 4, 2025
- vol. 51 no. 3, 2025
- vol. 51 no. 2, 2025
- vol. 51 no. 1, 2025
- vol. 50 no. 4, 2024
- vol. 50 no. 3, 2024
- vol. 50 no. 2, 2024
- vol. 50 no. 1, 2024
- vol. 49 no. 4, 2023
- vol. 49 no. 3, 2023
- vol. 49 no. 2, 2023
- vol. 49 no. 1, 2023
- vol. 48 no. 4, 2022
- vol. 48 no. 3, 2022
- vol. 48 no. 2, 2022
- vol. 48 no. 1, 2022
- vol. 47 no. 4, 2021
- vol. 47 no. 3, 2021
- vol. 47 no. 2, 2021
- vol. 47 no. 1, 2021
- vol. 46 no. 4, 2020
- vol. 46 no. 3, 2020
- vol. 46 no. 2, 2020
- vol. 46 no. 1, 2020
- vol. 45 no. 4, 2019
- vol. 45 no. 3, 2019
- vol. 45 no. 2, 2019
- vol. 45 no. 1, 2019
- vol. 44 no. 4, 2018
- vol. 44 no. 3, 2018
- vol. 44 no. 2, 2018
- vol. 44 no. 1, 2018
- vol. 43 no. 4, 2017
- vol. 43 no. 3, 2017
- vol. 43 no. 2, 2017
- vol. 43 no. 1, 2017
- vol. 42 no. 4, 2016
- vol. 42 no. 3, 2016
- vol. 42 no. 2, 2016
- vol. 42 no. 1, 2016
- vol. 41 no. 4, 2015
- vol. 41 no. 3, 2015
- vol. 41 no. 2, 2015
- vol. 41 no. 1, 2015
- vol. 40 no. 4, 2014
- vol. 40 no. 3, 2014
- vol. 40 no. 2, 2014
- vol. 40 no. 1, 2014
- vol. 39 no. 4, 2013
- vol. 39 no. 3, 2013
- vol. 39 no. 2, 2013
- vol. 39 no. 1, 2013
- vol. 38 no. 4, 2012
- vol. 38 no. 3, 2012
- vol. 38 no. 2, 2012
- vol. 38 no. 1, 2012
- vol. 37 no. 4, 2011
- vol. 37 no. 3, 2011
- vol. 37 no. 2, 2011
- vol. 37 no. 1, 2011
- vol. 36 no. 4, 2010
- vol. 36 no. 3, 2010
- vol. 36 no. 2, 2010
- vol. 36 no. 1, 2010
- vol. 35 no. 4, 2009
- vol. 35 no. 3, 2009
- vol. 35 no. 2, 2009
- vol. 35 no. 1, 2009
