Citations

AbstractIntroductionIn response to the need for simple, rapid means of quantifying surgical capacity in low resource settings, Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) developed the personnel, infrastructure, procedures, equipment and supplies (PIPES) tool. The present investigation assessed the inter‐rater reliability of the PIPES tool.MethodsAs part of a government assessment of surgical services in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the PIPES tool was translated into Spanish and applied in interviews with physicians at 31 public hospitals. An additional interview was conducted with nurses at a convenience sample of 25 of these hospitals. Physician and nurse responses were then compared to generate an estimate of reliability. For dichotomous survey items, inter‐rater reliability between physicians and nurses was assessed using the Cohen’s kappa statistic and percent agreement. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement for continuous items. ResultsCohen’s kappa was 0.46 for infrastructure, 0.43 for procedures, 0.26 for equipment, and 0 for supplies sections. The median correlation coefficient was 0.91 for continuous items. Correlation was 0.79 for the PIPES index, and ranged from 0.32 to 0.98 for continuous response items.ConclusionsReliability of the PIPES tool was moderate for the infrastructure and procedures sections, fair for the equipment section, and poor for supplies section when comparing surgeons’ responses to nurses’ responses—an extremely rigorous test of reliability. These results indicate that the PIPES tool is an effective measure of surgical capacity but that the equipment and supplies sections may need to be revised.

BACKGROUNDTo ensure that National Institutes of Health‐funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.METHODSEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.RESULTSCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.CONCLUSIONSCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient‐level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States. Cancer 2014;120(7 suppl):1113–21. © 2014 American Cancer Society.