Madeleine T King1, Meera Agar2,3,4, David C Currow2,5, Janet Hardy6, Belinda Fazekas2,7, Nikki McCaffrey8. 1. School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. madeleine.king@sydney.edu.au. 2. IMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. South West Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, Australia. 5. Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, England. 6. Department of Palliative and Supportive Care, Mater Health Services, Mater Research -University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 7. Discipline of Palliative and Supportive Services, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 8. Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Head-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14. METHODS: Secondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants' global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported 'no change' on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance. RESULTS: FACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59-0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51-0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54-0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test-retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total). CONCLUSIONS: No PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.
PURPOSE: Head-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14. METHODS: Secondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants' global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported 'no change' on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance. RESULTS: FACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59-0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51-0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54-0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test-retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total). CONCLUSIONS: No PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.
Entities:
Keywords:
EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL; FACIT-Pal; FACIT-Pal-14; FACT-G7; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life
Authors: Gwenda Albers; Michael A Echteld; Henrica C W de Vet; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Mecheline H M van der Linden; Luc Deliens Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Leonard Chiu; Nicholas Chiu; Edward Chow; David Cella; Jennifer L Beaumont; Henry Lam; Marko Popovic; Gillian Bedard; Michael Poon; Erin Wong; Liang Zeng; Andrew Bottomley Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947
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: Liang Zeng; Gillian Bedard; David Cella; Nemica Thavarajah; Emily Chen; Liying Zhang; Margaret Bennett; Kenneth Peckham; Sandra De Costa; Jennifer L Beaumont; May Tsao; Cyril Danjoux; Elizabeth Barnes; Arjun Sahgal; Edward Chow Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Alia Alawneh; Hesham Yasin; Ghaleb Khirfan; Bashar Abu Qayas; Khawla Ammar; Dalia Rimawi; Pål Klepstad Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Amy P Abernethy; Tania Shelby-James; Belinda S Fazekas; David Woods; David C Currow Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2005-11-12 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Rebecca A Aslakson; Shivani V Chandrashekaran; Elizabeth Rickerson; Bridget N Fahy; Fabian M Johnston; Judith A Miller; Alison Conca-Cheng; Suwei Wang; Arden M Morris; Karl Lorenz; Jennifer S Temel; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Juliana Todaro; Polianna Mara Rodrigues de Souza; Marci Pietrocola; Fernanda da Cunha Vieira; Nazaré Solange da Silva Amaro; Jandey da Gloria Bigonha; José Belém de Oliveira Neto; Auro Del Giglio Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2022-02-07