2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient‐reported outcome measures for emotional functioning in cancer patients: Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, FACT‐G, HADS, SF‐36, PRO‐CTCAE, and PROMIS instruments

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Cancer and its treatment can have substantial impact on patients' emotional functioning. Several patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing emotional functioning are available, but differences in content limit the comparability of results. To better understand conceptual (dis)similarities, we conducted a content comparison of commonly used PROMs.

          Methods

          We included emotional functioning items, scales, and item banks from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ‐C30, FACT‐G, Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), SF‐36, PRO‐CTCAE, and PROMIS (item banks for anxiety, depression, and anger). Item content was linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and a hierarchical framework established for PROMIS. Single items could be coded with more than one ICF category but were solely assigned to one facet within the PROMIS framework.

          Results

          The measures comprise 132 unique items covering the ICF components ‘Body functions’ (136/153 codings, 88.9%) and ‘Activities and participation’ (15/153, 9.8%). Most ICF codings (112/153, 73.2%) referred to the third‐level category ‘b1528 Emotional functions, other specified’. According to the PROMIS framework 48.5% of the items assessed depression (64/132 items), followed by anxiety (41/132, 31.1%) and anger (26/132, 19.7%). The EORTC measures covered depression, anxiety, and anger in a single measure, while the PROMIS inventory provides separate item banks for these concepts. The FACT‐G, SF‐36, PRO‐CTCAE and HADS covered depression and anxiety, but not anger.

          Conclusion

          Our results provide an in‐depth conceptual understanding of selected PROMs and important qualitative information going beyond psychometric evidence. Such information supports the identification of PROMs for which scores can be meaningfully linked with quantitative methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

              Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential when evaluating many new treatments in health care; yet, current measures have been limited by a lack of precision, standardization, and comparability of scores across studies and diseases. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) provides item banks that offer the potential for efficient (minimizes item number without compromising reliability), flexible (enables optional use of interchangeable items), and precise (has minimal error in estimate) measurement of commonly studied PROs. We report results from the first large-scale testing of PROMIS items. Fourteen item pools were tested in the U.S. general population and clinical groups using an online panel and clinic recruitment. A scale-setting subsample was created reflecting demographics proportional to the 2000 U.S. census. Using item-response theory (graded response model), 11 item banks were calibrated on a sample of 21,133, measuring components of self-reported physical, mental, and social health, along with a 10-item Global Health Scale. Short forms from each bank were developed and compared with the overall bank and with other well-validated and widely accepted ("legacy") measures. All item banks demonstrated good reliability across most of the score distributions. Construct validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations with legacy measures. PROMIS item banks and their short forms provide evidence that they are reliable and precise measures of generic symptoms and functional reports comparable to legacy instruments. Further testing will continue to validate and test PROMIS items and banks in diverse clinical populations. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Psycho-Oncology
                Psycho-Oncology
                Wiley
                1057-9249
                1099-1611
                April 2023
                February 19 2023
                April 2023
                : 32
                : 4
                : 628-639
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University Hospital of Psychiatry II Innsbruck Medical University Innsbruck Austria
                [2 ] Institute of Psychology University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria
                [3 ] Cancer Behavioural Science Unit King's College London London UK
                [4 ] Quality of Life Department European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brussels Belgium
                [5 ] Medical Oncology Department Hospital Universitario de Navarra Pamplona Spain
                [6 ] Palliative Care Research Unit Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine GP Bispebjerg/Frederiksberg Hospital University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark
                [7 ] Department of Public Health University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark
                [8 ] University Hospital of Psychiatry I Innsbruck Medical University Innsbruck Austria
                [9 ] Division of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology The Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [10 ] University Clinic and Outpatient Clinic for Radiotherapy and Institute of Health and Nursing Science Medical Faculty of Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle Germany
                [11 ] Supportive Oncology Research Team East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust Incorporating Mount Vernon Cancer Centre Northwood Middlesex UK
                Article
                10.1002/pon.6109
                a8c70fe1-8428-4ca6-b0f9-873a3bdcf83a
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article