Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/118042
Title: Comparing the contents of patient-reported outcome measures for fatigue : EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-FA12, FACIT, PRO-CTCAE, PROMIS, brief fatigue inventory, multidimensional fatigue inventory, and piper fatigue scale
Author(s): Rothmund, Maria
Pilz, Micha J.
Egeter, Nathalie
Lidington, Emma
Piccinin, Claire
Arraras, Juan I.
Groenvold, Mogens
Holzner, BernhardLook up in the Integrated Authority File of the German National Library
Leeuwen, MariekeLook up in the Integrated Authority File of the German National Library
Petersen, Morten Aa.
Ramage, John
Schmidt, Heike BirgitLook up in the Integrated Authority File of the German National Library
Young, Teresa
Giesinger, Johannes M.
Issue Date: 2024
Type: Article
Language: English
Abstract: Background: To assess fatigue in cancer patients, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available that differ in content. To support the selection of suitable measures for specific applications and to evaluate possibilities of quantitative linking, the present study provides a content comparison of common fatigue measures, scales, and item banks. We included the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-FA12, EORTC QLQ-C30, FACIT-F, PROMIS Fatigue (Cancer item bank v1.0), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS-12), and PRO-CTCAE. Methods: All items of the included measures were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Additionally, they were categorized as assessing general, physical, emotional, or cognitive fatigue. Descriptive statistics were used to display the contents covered in each measure and to allow for a qualitative comparison. Results: The measures consist of 160 items in total and covered primarily contents of the ICF components ‘Body functions’, ‘Activities and participation’, and ‘Environmental Factors’. Most ICF codings refer to ‘b1300 Energy level’ (9–67% of the codings per instrument; 47% of all coded content). Within the broad categorization of types of fatigue, most items were classified as general fatigue (33–100% of the codings per instrument; 49% of the overall item pool). While the EORTC CAT Core focuses exclusively on physical and general fatigue, FACIT and BFI additionally assess emotional fatigue. The EORTC QLQ-FA12, PROMIS, MFI-20, and PFS-12 cover all fatigue components, including cognitive fatigue. Discussion: The review provides an in-depth content comparison of PROMs assessing cancer-related fatigue. This can inform the selection of suitable measures in different clinical contexts. Furthermore, it will inform quantitative analyses to facilitate comparison of scores obtained with different PROMs.
URI: https://opendata.uni-halle.de//handle/1981185920/120001
http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/118042
Open Access: Open access publication
License: (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0(CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Journal Title: Health and quality of life outcomes
Publisher: BioMed Central
Publisher Place: London
Volume: 22
Original Publication: 10.1186/s12955-024-02316-0
Appears in Collections:Open Access Publikationen der MLU

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
s12955-024-02316-0.pdf1.33 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open