GOALS OF WORK: The objective of this study was to validate the Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised (PFS-R) for use in Brazilian culture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Translation of the PFS-R into Portuguese and validity and reliability tests were performed. Convenience samples in Brazil we as follows: 584 cancer patients (mean age 57 +/- 13 years; 51.3% female); 184 caregivers (mean age 50 +/- 12.7 years; 65.8% female); and 189 undergraduate nursing students (mean age 21.6 +/- 2.8 years; 96.2% female); Instruments used were as follows: Brazilian PFS, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). MAIN RESULTS: The 22 items of the Brazilian PFS loaded well (factor loading > 0.35) on three dimensions identified by factor analysis (behavioral, affective, and sensorial-psychological). These dimensions explained 65% of the variance. Internal consistency reliability was very good (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.841 to 0.943 for the total scale and its dimensions). Cancer patients and their caregivers completed the Brazilian PFS twice for test-retest reliability and results showed good stability (Pearson's r > or = 0.60, p < 0.001). Correlations among the Brazilian PFS and other scales were significant, in hypothesized directions, and mostly moderate contributing to divergent (Brazilian PFS x KPS) and convergent validity (Brazilian PFS x BDI). Mild, moderate, and severe fatigue in patients were reported by 73 (12.5%), 167 (28.6%), and 83 (14.2%), respectively. Surprisingly, students had the highest mean total fatigue scores; no significant differences were observed between patients and caregivers showing poor discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: While the Brazilian PFS is a reliable and valid instrument to measure fatigue in Brazilian cancer patients, further work is needed to evaluate the discriminant validity of the scale in Brazil.
GOALS OF WORK: The objective of this study was to validate the Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised (PFS-R) for use in Brazilian culture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Translation of the PFS-R into Portuguese and validity and reliability tests were performed. Convenience samples in Brazil we as follows: 584 cancerpatients (mean age 57 +/- 13 years; 51.3% female); 184 caregivers (mean age 50 +/- 12.7 years; 65.8% female); and 189 undergraduate nursing students (mean age 21.6 +/- 2.8 years; 96.2% female); Instruments used were as follows: Brazilian PFS, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). MAIN RESULTS: The 22 items of the Brazilian PFS loaded well (factor loading > 0.35) on three dimensions identified by factor analysis (behavioral, affective, and sensorial-psychological). These dimensions explained 65% of the variance. Internal consistency reliability was very good (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.841 to 0.943 for the total scale and its dimensions). Cancerpatients and their caregivers completed the Brazilian PFS twice for test-retest reliability and results showed good stability (Pearson's r > or = 0.60, p < 0.001). Correlations among the Brazilian PFS and other scales were significant, in hypothesized directions, and mostly moderate contributing to divergent (Brazilian PFS x KPS) and convergent validity (Brazilian PFS x BDI). Mild, moderate, and severe fatigue in patients were reported by 73 (12.5%), 167 (28.6%), and 83 (14.2%), respectively. Surprisingly, students had the highest mean total fatigue scores; no significant differences were observed between patients and caregivers showing poor discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: While the Brazilian PFS is a reliable and valid instrument to measure fatigue in Brazilian cancerpatients, further work is needed to evaluate the discriminant validity of the scale in Brazil.
Authors: Carolyn E Schwartz; Rita Bode; Nicholas Repucci; Janine Becker; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Peter M Fayers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: T Okuyama; T Akechi; A Kugaya; H Okamura; Y Shima; M Maruguchi; T Hosaka; Y Uchitomi Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Pieter C Dagnelie; Madelon C G Pijls-Johannesma; Anouk Pijpe; Brigit J E Boumans; Arno T P Skrabanja; Philippe Lambin; Gertrudis I J M Kempen Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Neli Muraki Ishikawa; Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler; Alessandra Grasso Giglio; Clarissa Seródio da Rocha Baldotto; Carlos José Coelho de Andrade; Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Angela M Stover; Catherine M Alfano; Ashley Wilder Smith; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Leslie Bernstein; Anne McTiernan; Kathy B Baumgartner; Barbara F Piper Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ana Claudia Garabeli Cavalli Kluthcovsky; Almir Antonio Urbanetz; Denise Siqueira de Carvalho; Eliane Mara Cesario Pereira Maluf; Geovana Cristina Schlickmann Sylvestre; Sergio Bruno Bonatto Hatschbach Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anna Berardi; Giulia Graziosi; Gina Ferrazzano; Laura Casagrande Conti; Maria Grazia Grasso; Marco Tramontano; Antonella Conte; Giovanni Galeoto Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: Andréa Dias Reis; Paula Tamara Vieira Teixeira Pereira; Renata Rodrigues Diniz; Jurema Gonçalves Lopes de Castro Filha; Alcione Miranda Dos Santos; Bianca Trovello Ramallo; Florentino Assenço Alves Filho; Francisco Navarro; João Batista Santos Garcia Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Vitor A Marques; João B Ferreira-Junior; Thiago V Lemos; Rafael F Moraes; José Roberto de S Junior; Rafael R Alves; Maria S Silva; Ruffo de Freitas-Junior; Carlos A Vieira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Luiz Augusto Riani Costa; Raphael F Barreto; Sarah Milani Moraes de Leandrini; Aline Rachel Bezerra Gurgel; Gabriel Toledo de Sales; Vanessa Azevedo Voltarelli; Gilberto de Castro; Sally A M Fenton; James E Turner; Christian Klausener; Lucas Melo Neves; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Jose Carlos Farah; Cláudia Lúcia de Moraes Forjaz; Christina May Moran Brito; Patricia Chakur Brum Journal: Trials Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 2.279