TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of three shortened questionnaires for assessment of quality of life in advanced cancer
AU - Chiu, Leonard
AU - Chiu, Nicholas
AU - Chow, Edward
AU - Cella, David
AU - Beaumont, Jennifer L.
AU - Lam, Henry
AU - Popovic, Marko
AU - Bedard, Gillian
AU - Poon, Michael
AU - Wong, Erin
AU - Zeng, Liang
AU - Bottomley, Andrew
PY - 2014/8/1
Y1 - 2014/8/1
N2 - Objective: Quality of life (QoL) assessment questionnaires can be burdensome to advanced cancer patients, thus necessitating the need for shorter assessment instruments than traditionally available. We compare three shortened QoL questionnaires in regards to their characteristics, validity, and reliability. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify studies that employed or discussed three abridged QoL questionnaires: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15-Palliative Care (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General-7 (FACT-G7), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care-14 (FACIT-PAL-14). Articles that discussed questionnaire length, intended use, scoring procedure, and validation were included. Results: The 7-item FACT-G7 is the shortest instrument, whereas the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-PAL-14 contain 14 and 15 items, respectively. All three questionnaires have similar recall period, item organization, and subscale components. Designed as core questionnaires, all three maintain content and concurrent validity of their unabridged original questionnaires. Both the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACT-G7 demonstrate good internal consistency and reliability, with Cronbach's α ≥0.7 deemed acceptable. The developmental study for the FACIT-PAL-14 was published in 2013 and subsequent validation studies are not yet available. Conclusion: The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACT-G7 were found to be reliable and appropriate for assessing health-related QoL issues - the former for palliative cancer patients and the latter for advanced cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Conceptually, the FACIT-PAL-14 holds promise to cover social and emotional support issues that are not completely addressed by the other two questionnaires; however, further validation is needed.
AB - Objective: Quality of life (QoL) assessment questionnaires can be burdensome to advanced cancer patients, thus necessitating the need for shorter assessment instruments than traditionally available. We compare three shortened QoL questionnaires in regards to their characteristics, validity, and reliability. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify studies that employed or discussed three abridged QoL questionnaires: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15-Palliative Care (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General-7 (FACT-G7), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care-14 (FACIT-PAL-14). Articles that discussed questionnaire length, intended use, scoring procedure, and validation were included. Results: The 7-item FACT-G7 is the shortest instrument, whereas the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-PAL-14 contain 14 and 15 items, respectively. All three questionnaires have similar recall period, item organization, and subscale components. Designed as core questionnaires, all three maintain content and concurrent validity of their unabridged original questionnaires. Both the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACT-G7 demonstrate good internal consistency and reliability, with Cronbach's α ≥0.7 deemed acceptable. The developmental study for the FACIT-PAL-14 was published in 2013 and subsequent validation studies are not yet available. Conclusion: The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACT-G7 were found to be reliable and appropriate for assessing health-related QoL issues - the former for palliative cancer patients and the latter for advanced cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Conceptually, the FACIT-PAL-14 holds promise to cover social and emotional support issues that are not completely addressed by the other two questionnaires; however, further validation is needed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905366904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905366904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/jpm.2014.0012
DO - 10.1089/jpm.2014.0012
M3 - Review article
C2 - 24922521
AN - SCOPUS:84905366904
SN - 1096-6218
VL - 17
SP - 918
EP - 923
JO - Journal of palliative medicine
JF - Journal of palliative medicine
IS - 8
ER -
