Aaron J Kaat1, Benjamin D Schalet1, Joshua Rutsohn1, Roxanne E Jensen2, David Cella1. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Cancer Center and Control Program, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is becoming an integral component of quality improvement initiatives, clinical care, and research studies in cancer, including comparative effectiveness research. However, the number of PROs limits comparability across studies. Herein, the authors attempted to link the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Physical Well-Being (FACT-G PWB) subscale with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) calibrated item bank. The also sought to augment a subset of the conceptually most similar FACT-G PWB items with PROMIS PF items to improve the linking. METHODS: Baseline data from 5506 participants in the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study were used to identify the optimal items for linking FACT-G PWB with PROMIS PF. A mixed methods approach identified the optimal items for creating the 5-item FACT/PROMIS-PF5 scale. Both the linked and augmented relationships were cross-validated using the follow-up MY-Health data. RESULTS: A 5-item FACT-G PWB item subset was found to be optimal for linking with PROMIS PF. In addition, a 2-item subset, including only items that were conceptually very similar to the PROMIS item bank content, were augmented with 3 PROMIS PF items. This new FACT/PROMIS-PF5 provided superior score recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PF metric allows for the evaluation of the extent to which similar questionnaires can be linked and therefore expressed on the same metric. These results allow for the aggregation of existing data and provide an optimal measure for future studies wishing to use the FACT yet also report on the PROMIS PF metric. Cancer 2018;124:153-60.
BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is becoming an integral component of quality improvement initiatives, clinical care, and research studies in cancer, including comparative effectiveness research. However, the number of PROs limits comparability across studies. Herein, the authors attempted to link the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Physical Well-Being (FACT-G PWB) subscale with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) calibrated item bank. The also sought to augment a subset of the conceptually most similar FACT-G PWB items with PROMIS PF items to improve the linking. METHODS: Baseline data from 5506 participants in the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study were used to identify the optimal items for linking FACT-G PWB with PROMIS PF. A mixed methods approach identified the optimal items for creating the 5-item FACT/PROMIS-PF5 scale. Both the linked and augmented relationships were cross-validated using the follow-up MY-Health data. RESULTS: A 5-item FACT-G PWB item subset was found to be optimal for linking with PROMIS PF. In addition, a 2-item subset, including only items that were conceptually very similar to the PROMIS item bank content, were augmented with 3 PROMIS PF items. This new FACT/PROMIS-PF5 provided superior score recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PF metric allows for the evaluation of the extent to which similar questionnaires can be linked and therefore expressed on the same metric. These results allow for the aggregation of existing data and provide an optimal measure for future studies wishing to use the FACT yet also report on the PROMIS PF metric. Cancer 2018;124:153-60.
Keywords:
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT); Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS); Physical Function; item response theory; linking
Authors: Paul G Kluetz; Ashley Slagle; Elektra J Papadopoulos; Laura Lee Johnson; Martha Donoghue; Virginia E Kwitkowski; Wen-Hung Chen; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Ann T Farrell; Patricia Keegan; Geoffrey Kim; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Dennis A Revicki; Karon F Cook; Eswar Krishnan; Jim F Fries; David Cella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karon F Cook; Benjamin D Schalet; Michael A Kallen; Joshua P Rutsohn; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Leonie Klaufus; Xiaodan Tang; Eva Verlinden; Marcel van der Wal; Lotte Haverman; Michiel Luijten; Pim Cuijpers; Mai Chinapaw; Benjamin Schalet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Axel Budde; Katja Baust; Leonie Weinhold; Mark Bernstein; Stefan Bielack; Catharina Dhooge; Lars Hjorth; Katherine A Janeway; Meriel Jenney; Mark D Krailo; Neyssa Marina; Rajaram Nagarajan; Sigbjørn Smeland; Matthew R Sydes; Patricia De Vos; Jeremy Whelan; Andreas Wiener; Gabriele Calaminus; Matthias Schmid Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 10.002
Authors: Shana E Harrington; Nicole L Stout; Elizabeth Hile; Mary Insana Fisher; Melissa Eden; Victoria Marchese; Lucinda A Pfalzer Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2020-03-10
Authors: Marilyn Heng; Xiaodan Tang; Benjamin D Schalet; Austin K Collins; Antonia F Chen; Christopher M Melnic; Todd M O'Brien; Rachel C Sisodia; Patricia D Franklin; David Cella Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.176