Article

The comparability of quality of life scores. a multitrait multimethod analysis of the EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36 and FLIC questionnaires.

Department of Oncology and Hematology, Universitatsklinikum Charite, Humboldt Universitat, 10098, Berlin, Germany.
European Journal of Cancer (Impact Factor: 5.06). 03/2002; 38(3):339-48. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00369-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study investigates whether similarly named subscales of three quality of life questionnaires, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Medical Outcome Study Quality of Life Questionnaire Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Functional Living Index Cancer questionnaire (FLIC) assess similar aspects of the patients' quality of life. A multitrait multimethod analysis on the answers of 234 cancer patients showed that subscale correlations as indicators of convergent validity significantly exceed corresponding correlations of discriminant validity in five of the seven dimensions analysed (physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue/vitality and nausea/vomiting). The results of the social functioning and overall health subscales are less clear. Content analysis of the social functioning scales reveals that this domain is differently operationalised in the three questionnaires. Linear regressions of the overall health subscales suggest that patients interpret overall health questions of the three questionnaires differently. The results show that overall health subscales of these three questionnaires cannot be equated, while most specific subscales provide valid results.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
76 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Despite being readily available and practical to administer, standardised instruments are not widely used in clinical practice. Concerns have been raised about the validity of applying such data to individuals. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the practical difficulties of interpreting standardised HrQoL data for individual patients. METHODS: A purposive sample of 20 patients with colorectal cancer was chosen from 210 participants in a prospective HrQoL study. In an in-depth interview, individual participants were asked about their experiences and to review the accuracy of their own HrQoL data, collected over preceding months using four different instruments (FACT-C QLQ-C30/CR38 SF12 and EQ-5D). A framework qualitative analysis was used to develop emerging themes. RESULTS: A number of themes emerged from the analysis to explain why disparity arose between the patients' experiences and the questionnaire data in certain situations. These included weakly worded items that over emphasised health problems, incongruous items within scales causing unpredictable scores, insufficient levels of response causing insensitivity, and unrecognised reversal of item direction causing contradictory scores. Exogenous factors such as mood and co-morbidities also influenced HrQoL reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Data from standardised instruments can be used to measure the HrQoL of individuals in clinical practice, but the instruments used need careful selection and interpretation. Appropriate guidance linked to the themes of this study is provided.
    Quality of Life Research 11/2012; · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is considered a valid instrument for use in Brazil. However, the previous Brazilian validation study included only 30 lung cancer patients and only measured test-retest reliability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a sample of cancer patients at different educational levels who completed the instrument administered by an interviewer. Data from six prospective studies conducted by the same group of researchers were combined in this study (N = 986). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, all values of which were >0.7, with the exception of cognitive functioning, social functioning, and nausea and vomiting (α = 0.57, α = 0.69, and α = 0.68, respectively). In multi-trait scaling analysis, convergent and divergent validity were considered adequate (validity indices were 91.6 and 97.4 %). In general, moderate to strong correlations were found between the subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its respective dimensions from the WHOQOL-bref, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) instruments. In addition, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was able to differentiate groups of patients with distinct performance statuses and types of treatment (known-group validation). Statistical analyses were also performed on educational status, yielding similar results. Detailed psychometric property data using the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Brazil are added by this study. In addition, we demonstrated that this instrument is in general reliable and valid regardless of the patient educational level.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 03/2014; · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality of life (QOL) is a concept assessing physical, psychological and social factors which are influencing the patients' well being. Cancer and its therapy induce severe metabolic changes associated with QOL impairment. These alterations contribute to an increased energy wasting and a decreased food intake. Besides, it may lead to tumoral cachexia due to the complex interactions between pro-inflammatory cytokines and the host metabolism. On the other hand, and beyond physical impairments and metabolic effects from cancer, patients often suffer from psychological stress, such as depression. A nutritional intervention should be implemented as soon as cancer is diagnosed. It should be appropriate to the individual needs of the patient, considering the type of oncologic treatment (whether it is curative or palliative), the clinical conditions and the nutritional status. The aim is to reduce or even revert nutritional status impairment, improve the general condition, and subsequently improve quality of life. The primary focus of nutritional intervention accompanying oncologic treatment intended to cure is on the optimization of the balance between energy waste and food intake. Thus trying to achieve further specific purposes such as a decrease of rate of complications and an amelioration of the response and tolerance to the oncologic therapy. The purpose of nutritional support in palliative care is controlling the symptoms related to food intake and delaying the loss of autonomy. And by this means maintaining or improving patients' QOL. It is corraborated by a literature review, that nutritional therapy should form part of the integral oncological support since it contributes considerably to a QOL improvement. Because of the possibility to identify the patients' needs and expectations by assessing their QOL it should be generally included into their nutritional evaluation to be able to tailor the adequate nutritional support.
    Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral 06/2007; 22(3):337-350. · 1.31 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
64 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014