Literature DB >> 8628043

Responsiveness of a single-item indicator versus a multi-item scale: assessment of emotional well-being in an international adjuvant breast cancer trial.

C Hürny1, J Bernhard, A Coates, H F Peterson, M Castiglione-Gertsch, R D Gelber, C M Rudenstam, J Collins, J Lindtner, A Goldhirsch, H J Senn.   

Abstract

A single-item linear analogue self-assessment scale for mood was compared with a 28-item adjective checklist for emotional well-being. To confirm its concurrent validity and responsiveness to treatment and recurrence in patients with breast cancer, emotional well-being was assessed every 3 months for 2 years and at 1 and 6 months after recurrence in 1,169 patients who were premenopausal and 960 patients who were postmenopausal. These patients were enrolled in two International Breast Cancer Study Group randomized clinical trials in operable breast cancer conducted from 1986 to 1993. To assess concurrent validity, Pearson's correlation between the linear analogue self-assessment scale and the adjective checklist were calculated for each time-point within each treatment group and for the two assessments after recurrence. Responsiveness to treatment and recurrence were analyzed using paired t tests and the squared ratio of these t tests, an estimate of relative efficiency. Concurrent validity of the mood linear analogue self-assessment was consistently confirmed across four language groups. Both measures were responsive; out of 24 changes over time, 19 were in the expected direction for the linear analogue self-assessment scale (p < or = 0.05 for 9 of 19) and 17 for the adjective checklist (p < or = 0.05 for 10 of 17). The linear analogue self-assessment scale was less but significantly efficient for detection of treatment effects, with relative efficiency estimates ranging from 0.16 to 2.45 and a median of 0.66 among the comparisons with relatively stable estimates (/t/ > or = 1.0) and more efficient for recurrence than the adjective checklist. The mood linear analogue self-assessment scale is a valid indicator of emotional well-being in patients with breast cancer in large multicenter, multicultural trials in which comprehensive scales are less feasible. This investigation supports the clinical relevance of linear analogue self-assessment scales as indicators of components of quality of life in cancer clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8628043     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  22 in total

1.  A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  L E Pfennings; H M van der Ploeg; L Cohen; C H Polman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Quantitative assessment of changes in patients' constructs of quality of life: an application of multilevel models.

Authors:  Adam Lowy; Jürg Bernhard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Health related quality of life: a changing construct?

Authors:  Jürg Bernhard; Adam Lowy; Natascha Mathys; Richard Herrmann; Christoph Hürny
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Control of oncologic pain in relief of suffering. Our experience.

Authors:  M González Barón; M A Lacasta Reverte; A Ordóñez Gallego; C Belda-Iniesta
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  Patient-reported outcomes with adjuvant exemestane versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian suppression (TEXT and SOFT): a combined analysis of two phase 3 randomised trials.

Authors:  Jürg Bernhard; Weixiu Luo; Karin Ribi; Marco Colleoni; Harold J Burstein; Carlo Tondini; Graziella Pinotti; Simon Spazzapan; Thomas Ruhstaller; Fabio Puglisi; Lorenzo Pavesi; Vani Parmar; Meredith M Regan; Olivia Pagani; Gini F Fleming; Prudence A Francis; Karen N Price; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Barbara A Walley
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a reply to Maratia et al.

Authors:  Karin Ribi; Alan Coates; Lynette Blacher; Meredith M Regan; Richard D Gelber; Jürg Bernhard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Use of a lidocaine patch in the management of postsurgical neuropathic pain in patients with cancer: a phase III double-blind crossover study (N01CB).

Authors:  Andrea L Cheville; Jeff A Sloan; Donald W Northfelt; Anand P Jillella; Gilbert Y Wong; James D Bearden Iii; Heshan Liu; Paul L Schaefer; Benjamin T Marchello; Bradley J Christensen; Charles L Loprinzi
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Adjuvant pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for older women with endocrine nonresponsive breast cancer who are NOT suitable for a "standard chemotherapy regimen": the CASA randomized trial.

Authors:  Diana Crivellari; Kathryn P Gray; Silvia Dellapasqua; Fabio Puglisi; Karin Ribi; Karen N Price; István Láng; Lorenzo Gianni; Simon Spazzapan; Graziella Pinotti; Jean-Marc Lüthi; Richard D Gelber; Meredith M Regan; Marco Colleoni; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Rudolf Maibach; Manuela Rabaglio; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 4.380

9.  Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of QOLIE-10 in Epilepsy.

Authors:  Sang-Ahm Lee; Sung-Cheol Yun; Byung-In Lee
Journal:  J Clin Neurol       Date:  2006-12-20       Impact factor: 3.077

10.  Estimating prognosis and palliation based on tumour marker CA 19-9 and quality of life indicators in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Authors:  J Bernhard; D Dietrich; B Glimelius; V Hess; G Bodoky; W Scheithauer; R Herrmann
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.