Charlene Treanor1, Michael Donnelly. 1. UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, c.treanor@qub.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic review of the validity, reliability and sensitivity of the Short Form (SF) health survey measures among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: We searched a number of databases for peer-reviewed papers. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed using the COnsenus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). RESULTS: The review identified seven papers that assessed the psychometric properties of the SF-36 (n = 5), partial SF-36 (n = 1) and SF-12 (n = 1) among breast cancer survivors. Internal consistency scores for the SF measures ranged from acceptable to good across a range of language and ethnic sub-groups. The SF-36 demonstrated good convergent validity with respective subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General scale and two lymphedema-specific measures. Divergent validity between the SF-36 and Lymph-ICF was modest. The SF-36 demonstrated good factor structure in the total breast cancer survivor study samples. However, the factor structure appeared to differ between specific language and ethnic sub-groups. The SF-36 discriminated between survivors who reported or did not report symptoms on the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Symptom Checklist and SF-36 physical sub-scales, but not mental sub-scales, discriminated between survivors with or without lymphedema. Methodological quality scores varied between and within papers. CONCLUSION: Short Form measures appear to provide a reliable and valid indication of general health status among breast cancer survivors though the limited data suggests that particular caution is required when interpreting scores provided by non-English language groups. Further research is required to test the sensitivity or responsiveness of the measure.
PURPOSE: A systematic review of the validity, reliability and sensitivity of the Short Form (SF) health survey measures among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: We searched a number of databases for peer-reviewed papers. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed using the COnsenus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). RESULTS: The review identified seven papers that assessed the psychometric properties of the SF-36 (n = 5), partial SF-36 (n = 1) and SF-12 (n = 1) among breast cancer survivors. Internal consistency scores for the SF measures ranged from acceptable to good across a range of language and ethnic sub-groups. The SF-36 demonstrated good convergent validity with respective subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General scale and two lymphedema-specific measures. Divergent validity between the SF-36 and Lymph-ICF was modest. The SF-36 demonstrated good factor structure in the total breast cancer survivor study samples. However, the factor structure appeared to differ between specific language and ethnic sub-groups. The SF-36 discriminated between survivors who reported or did not report symptoms on the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Symptom Checklist and SF-36 physical sub-scales, but not mental sub-scales, discriminated between survivors with or without lymphedema. Methodological quality scores varied between and within papers. CONCLUSION: Short Form measures appear to provide a reliable and valid indication of general health status among breast cancer survivors though the limited data suggests that particular caution is required when interpreting scores provided by non-English language groups. Further research is required to test the sensitivity or responsiveness of the measure.
Authors: Floortje Mols; Ad J J M Vingerhoets; Jan Willem Coebergh; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Laura P Forsythe; Catherine M Alfano; Stephanie M George; Anne McTiernan; Kathy B Baumgartner; Leslie Bernstein; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Dirk L Knol; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: An De Groef; Marijke Van Kampen; Nele Verlvoesem; Evi Dieltjens; Lore Vos; Tessa De Vrieze; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Patrick Neven; Inge Geraerts; Nele Devoogdt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matthias Hoben; Jennifer A Knopp-Sihota; Maryam Nesari; Stephanie A Chamberlain; Janet E Squires; Peter G Norton; Greta G Cummings; Bonnie J Stevens; Carole A Estabrooks Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-11-21
Authors: Vicki Hart; Brian L Sprague; Susan G Lakoski; John M Hampton; Polly A Newcomb; Ronald E Gangnon; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vicki Hart; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Amy Berkman; Mayo Fujii; Christopher Veal; John Hampton; Ronald E Gangnon; Polly A Newcomb; Susan C Gilchrist; Brian L Sprague Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 4.147