[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This review aims to assist cancer clinical researchers in choosing between the two most widely used measures of cancer-specific health-related quality of life: the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G).
Information on QLQ-C30 and FACT-G content, scale structure, accessibility and availability was collated from websites and manuals. A systematic review was undertaken to identify all articles reporting on psychometric properties and information to assist interpretability. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness was rated using a standardised checklist. Instrument properties were compared and contrasted to inform recommendations.
Psychometric evidence does not recommend one questionnaire over the other in general. However, there are important differences between the scale structure, social domains and tone that inform choice for any particular study.
Where research objectives are concerned with the impact of a specific tumour type, treatment or symptom, choice should be guided by the availability, content, scale structure and psychometric properties of relevant European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer versus Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy modules. Because the FACT-G combines symptoms and concerns within each scale, individual items should always be reviewed within the context of specific research objectives. Where these issues are indecisive, researchers are encouraged to use an algorithm at the end of the current article.
Annals of Oncology 02/2011; 22(10):2179-90. · 7.38 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study aimed to explore the impact of nurse responses to patients' and family members' emotional cues and concerns during the chemotherapy education consultation.
51 cancer patients and 13 nurses participated in this study. Nurse-delivered chemotherapy education sessions were audio-recorded, and patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 V3.0 questionnaire before the education. The audio records were transcribed and coded.
Patients expressed their emotions more than family members, but patients' cues decreased when family were present. Patients with lower emotional wellbeing (greater psychological distress) prior to the consultation did not express more cues/concerns. Nurses responded to patients' and families' cues equally in a cue-facilitative fashion. Facilitative responses were associated with decreased patients' cues.
Family presence appears to hinder patients' cues/concerns. Nurses' PS responses were associated with less cues/concerns by patients.
The current study challenges the common assumption that a higher number of cues is indicative of effective consultation, and indicates the influence of family in patients' cues/concerns.
Patient Education and Counseling 02/2011; 82(2):163-8. · 2.37 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to inform choice of optimal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of anxiety, depression and general distress for studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogenous cancer diagnoses.
A systematic review was conducted to identify all PROMs used to assess anxiety, depression and general distress in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial interventions for people with cancer published between 1999 and May 2009. Candidate PROMs were evaluated for content, evidence of reliability and validity, clinical meaningfulness, comparison data, efficiency, ease of administration, cognitive burden and track record in identifying treatment effects in RCTs of psychosocial interventions. Property ratings were weighted and summed to give an overall score out of 100.
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scored highest overall (weighted score = 77.5), followed by the unofficial short-form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the POMS-37 (weighted score = 60), and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and original POMS (weighted score = 55 each).
The HADS' efficiency and substantial track record recommend its use where anxiety, mixed affective disorders or general distress are outcomes of interest. However, continuing controversy concerning the HADS depression scale cautions against dependence where depressive disorders are of primary interest. Where cost is a concern, the POMS-37 is recommended to measure anxiety or mixed affective disorders but does not offer a suitable index of general distress and, like the HADS, emphasises anhedonia in measuring depression. Where depression is the sole focus, the CES-D is recommended.
Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2010; 18(10):1241-62. · 2.09 Impact Factor