Janneke van Roij1, Heidi Fransen2, Lonneke van de Poll-Franse2,3,4, Myrte Zijlstra2,5, Natasja Raijmakers2. 1. The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands. j.vanroij@iknl.nl. 2. The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. CoRPS - Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud MC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important in clinical practice. The implementation of PROMS in routine practice is challenging because information regarding psychometric quality of measurement instruments is fragmented and standardization is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments for use in patients with advanced cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to identify studies concerning self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments in patients with advanced cancer between January 1990 and September 2016. Quality of the measurement instruments was assessed by predefined criteria derived from the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: Sixty-nine articles relating to 39 measurement instruments met the inclusion criteria. Information regarding important measurement properties was often incomplete. None of the instruments performed sufficient on all measurement properties. Considering available information, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL appeared to have adequate psychometric properties, together with the EORTC QLQ-BM22. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the existing HRQoL measurement instruments have not yet been evaluated in an adequate manner. Validation of self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments is an ongoing development and should be prioritized. This review contributes to improved clarity regarding the availability and quality of HRQoL measurement instruments for patients with advanced cancer and supports health care professionals in an adequate selection of suitable PROMs in clinical practice.
PURPOSE:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important in clinical practice. The implementation of PROMS in routine practice is challenging because information regarding psychometric quality of measurement instruments is fragmented and standardization is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments for use in patients with advanced cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to identify studies concerning self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments in patients with advanced cancer between January 1990 and September 2016. Quality of the measurement instruments was assessed by predefined criteria derived from the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: Sixty-nine articles relating to 39 measurement instruments met the inclusion criteria. Information regarding important measurement properties was often incomplete. None of the instruments performed sufficient on all measurement properties. Considering available information, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL appeared to have adequate psychometric properties, together with the EORTC QLQ-BM22. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the existing HRQoL measurement instruments have not yet been evaluated in an adequate manner. Validation of self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments is an ongoing development and should be prioritized. This review contributes to improved clarity regarding the availability and quality of HRQoL measurement instruments for patients with advanced cancer and supports health care professionals in an adequate selection of suitable PROMs in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical oncology; Palliative care; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of Life; Validation studies
Authors: Karen E Steinhauser; Elizabeth C Clipp; Hayden B Bosworth; Maya McNeilly; Nicholas A Christakis; Corrine I Voils; James A Tulsky Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2004-03
Authors: William D Winkelman; Katharine Lauderdale; Michael J Balboni; Andrea C Phelps; John R Peteet; Susan D Block; Lisa A Kachnic; Tyler J VanderWeele; Tracy A Balboni Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nemica Thavarajah; Gillian Bedard; Liying Zhang; David Cella; Jennifer L Beaumont; May Tsao; Elizabeth Barnes; Cyril Danjoux; Arjun Sahgal; Hany Soliman; Edward Chow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John M Salsman; Jennifer L Beaumont; Katy Wortman; Ying Yan; John Friend; David Cella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Myrte Zijlstra; Laurien Ham; Linda Brom; Heidi Fransen; Art Vreugdenhil; Natasja Raijmakers; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Ophélie Wilczynski; Anthony Boisbouvier; Lise Radoszycki; François-Emery Cotté; Anne-Françoise Gaudin; Hervé Lemasson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 5.428