Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/101885
Title: 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
Author(s): Rothmund, Maria
Pilz, Micha J.
Egeter, Nathalie
Lidington, Emma
Piccinin, Claire
Arraras, Juan I.
Grønvold, Mogens
Holzner, Bernhard
Leeuwen, MariekeLook up in the Integrated Authority File of the German National Library
Petersen, Morten Aa.
Schmidt, Heike
Young, Teresa
Giesinger, Johannes M.
Issue Date: 2023
Type: Article
Language: English
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.
URI: https://opendata.uni-halle.de//handle/1981185920/103836
http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/101885
Open Access: Open access publication
License: (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0
Journal Title: Psycho-oncology
Publisher: Wiley
Publisher Place: New York, NY [u.a.]
Volume: 32
Issue: 4
Original Publication: 10.1002/pon.6109
Page Start: 628
Page End: 639
Appears in Collections:Open Access Publikationen der MLU