Farkhondeh Jamshidi1, Maryam Farzad2,3, Joy C MacDermid4,5,6, Azar Varahra7, Seyed Ali Hosseini8, Mojtaba Habibi Asgarabad9,10. 1. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. School of Physical Therapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario. Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital, London, ON, Canada. mfarzad@uwo.ca. 3. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, London, ON, Canada. mfarzad@uwo.ca. 4. Physical Therapy and Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 5. Clinical Research Lab, Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Centre, London, ON, Canada. 6. Rehabilitation Science McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 7. Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 8. Occupational Therapy Department, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 9. Health Promotion Research Center, Department of Health Psychology, School of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 10. Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify currently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate disability in breast cancer survivors (BC) and critically evaluate their content and measurement properties. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched from 2001 to February 2021. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The content of the included PROM was evaluated by linking the items of the questionnaires to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for BC using standard linking rules. Methodological quality and measurement properties were assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence on content validity and measurement properties. The overall quality of evidence on each measurement property was provided using GRADE principles. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies reported measurement properties of seven PROMs. The content of included PROMs mostly focused on disability (70% of items), and less on body function and structure (23%) or environmental factors (6%). There was high linkage to The Comprehensive Core Set for BC, Q-DASH (100%), UEFI (95%) and DASH (92%). The Core Set Unique Disability Representation for DASH, and WHODAS2 was 39% and BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF was 34%. BCSQ-BC, and Lymph-ICF represented 32, and 20% of the content of the Core Set for BC, respectively, however, the other questionnaires covered less than 20% of the content of the Core Set. High quality of evidence supports sufficient results for internal consistency, testretest, and measurement error for BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF, DASH and WHODAS2. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of evidence on all-important clinical measurement, two generic (DASH and WHODAS2) and two disease-specific (BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF) PROM demonstrated emerging evidence of adequate measurement properties. The stronger alignment of the BCSQ-BC to the breast cancer ICF core set makes it preferable is a disease-specific measure. The Lymph-ICF is recommended where lymphedema is a specific focus. The DASH and WHODAS2 might be most useful where patients with a variety of upper extremity conditions, including breast cancer survivors, are being evaluated in the clinic or research study.
PURPOSE: To identify currently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate disability in breast cancer survivors (BC) and critically evaluate their content and measurement properties. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched from 2001 to February 2021. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The content of the included PROM was evaluated by linking the items of the questionnaires to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for BC using standard linking rules. Methodological quality and measurement properties were assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence on content validity and measurement properties. The overall quality of evidence on each measurement property was provided using GRADE principles. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies reported measurement properties of seven PROMs. The content of included PROMs mostly focused on disability (70% of items), and less on body function and structure (23%) or environmental factors (6%). There was high linkage to The Comprehensive Core Set for BC, Q-DASH (100%), UEFI (95%) and DASH (92%). The Core Set Unique Disability Representation for DASH, and WHODAS2 was 39% and BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF was 34%. BCSQ-BC, and Lymph-ICF represented 32, and 20% of the content of the Core Set for BC, respectively, however, the other questionnaires covered less than 20% of the content of the Core Set. High quality of evidence supports sufficient results for internal consistency, testretest, and measurement error for BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF, DASH and WHODAS2. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of evidence on all-important clinical measurement, two generic (DASH and WHODAS2) and two disease-specific (BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF) PROM demonstrated emerging evidence of adequate measurement properties. The stronger alignment of the BCSQ-BC to the breast cancer ICF core set makes it preferable is a disease-specific measure. The Lymph-ICF is recommended where lymphedema is a specific focus. The DASH and WHODAS2 might be most useful where patients with a variety of upper extremity conditions, including breast cancer survivors, are being evaluated in the clinic or research study.
Keywords:
Breast cancer survivors; COSMIN; ICF core set for breast cancer; Lymph-ICF; Patient-reported outcomes; Psychometric properties; Upper extremity
Authors: Delva R Shamley; Ragavan Srinanaganathan; Rosamund Weatherall; Reza Oskrochi; Marion Watson; Simon Ostlere; Elaine Sugden Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-01-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nancy E Mayo; Lise Poissant; Sara Ahmed; Lois Finch; Johanne Higgins; Nancy M Salbach; Judith Soicher; Susan Jaglal Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 4.497