Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7).

King, MT; Agar, M; Currow, DC; Hardy, J; Fazekas, B; McCaffrey, N

Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7).

King, MT Agar, M

Currow, DC Hardy, J Fazekas, B McCaffrey, N

Permalink

Publisher:: SPRINGER
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020, 28, (1), pp. 141-153
Issue Date:: 2020-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	King2020_Article_AssessingQualityOfLifeInPallia.pdf	Published version	662 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	King, MT
dc.contributor.author	Agar, M https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6756-6119
dc.contributor.author	Currow, DC
dc.contributor.author	Hardy, J
dc.contributor.author	Fazekas, B
dc.contributor.author	McCaffrey, N
dc.date.accessioned	2020-07-30T01:04:24Z
dc.date.available	2019-03-18
dc.date.available	2020-07-30T01:04:24Z
dc.date.issued	2020-01
dc.identifier.citation	Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020, 28, (1), pp. 141-153
dc.identifier.issn	0941-4355
dc.identifier.issn	1433-7339
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/141915
dc.description.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.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	SPRINGER
dc.relation.ispartof	Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s00520-019-04754-9
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Oncology & Carcinogenesis
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Vomiting
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care
dc.subject.mesh	Karnofsky Performance Status
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Self Report
dc.subject.mesh	Chronic Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Reported Outcome Measures
dc.subject.mesh	Cancer Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Vomiting
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care
dc.subject.mesh	Karnofsky Performance Status
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Self Report
dc.subject.mesh	Chronic Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Reported Outcome Measures
dc.subject.mesh	Cancer Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Cancer Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Chronic Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Karnofsky Performance Status
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Reported Outcome Measures
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Self Report
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Vomiting
dc.title	Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7).
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	28
utslib.location.activity	Germany
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/IMPACCT
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2020-07-30T01:04:20Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	28
utslib.citation.issue	1

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.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/141915