PURPOSE: We compared Japanese versions of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-C30 to assess the utility of the former survey for terminal-phase cancer patients. METHODS: We used QLQ-C30 scores from the survey prior to each patient's death and extracted QLQ-C15-PAL data. We determined intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the five QLQ-C15-PAL subscales: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and global health status/quality of life (QOL) and assessed equivalent-form reliability. Regression analysis was used to determine the extent to which QLQ-C15-PAL items explained the QLQ-C30 score. RESULTS: Our study included 32 of 91 cancer patients receiving palliative care who could self-administer the questionnaire. The ICC between the QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-C30 scores was 0.93 or higher. The proportion of variance (R-squared) for each subscale was 0.87 or higher. CONCLUSION: We examined the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the QLQ-C15-PAL. We found an 87% or higher chance that the QLQ-C15-PAL could explain the original QLQ-C30 score. Therefore, QLQ-C15-PAL appears to be useful for assessing the QOL of terminal-phase cancer patients.
PURPOSE: We compared Japanese versions of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-C30 to assess the utility of the former survey for terminal-phase cancerpatients. METHODS: We used QLQ-C30 scores from the survey prior to each patient's death and extracted QLQ-C15-PAL data. We determined intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the five QLQ-C15-PAL subscales: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and global health status/quality of life (QOL) and assessed equivalent-form reliability. Regression analysis was used to determine the extent to which QLQ-C15-PAL items explained the QLQ-C30 score. RESULTS: Our study included 32 of 91 cancerpatients receiving palliative care who could self-administer the questionnaire. The ICC between the QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-C30 scores was 0.93 or higher. The proportion of variance (R-squared) for each subscale was 0.87 or higher. CONCLUSION: We examined the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the QLQ-C15-PAL. We found an 87% or higher chance that the QLQ-C15-PAL could explain the original QLQ-C30 score. Therefore, QLQ-C15-PAL appears to be useful for assessing the QOL of terminal-phase cancerpatients.
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold; Neil Aaronson; Jane Blazeby; Yvonne Brandberg; Alexander de Graeff; Peter Fayers; Eva Hammerlid; Mirjam Sprangers; Galina Velikova; Jakob B Bjorner Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Michael A Echteld; Luc Deliens; Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Martin Klein; Gerrit van der Wal Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: K Kobayashi; F Takeda; S Teramukai; I Gotoh; H Sakai; S Yoneda; Y Noguchi; H Ogasawara; K Yoshida Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathleen Doyle Lyons; Marie Bakitas; Mark T Hegel; Brett Hanscom; Jay Hull; Tim A Ahles Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Juan Ignacio Arraras; Fernando Arias de la Vega; Gemma Asin; Mikel Rico; Uxue Zarandona; Clara Eito; Koldo Cambra; Marta Barrondo; Marta Errasti; Juan Verdún; Jose Rivadeneira; Miguel Angel Dominguez Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Madeleine T King; Meera Agar; David C Currow; Janet Hardy; Belinda Fazekas; Nikki McCaffrey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603