Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: breast cancer (QLICP-BR)

Health-related quality of life and its influencing factors in patients with breast cancer based on the scale QLICP-BR

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among females worldwide. During the past 15 years, quality of life (QOL) has become an important aspect of breast cancer treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate QOL of breast cancer patients in China, and investigate its associations with sociodemographic and clinical variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 246 breast cancer patients in China. Recruited patients were surveyed for QOL using the QOL instruments for cancer patients-breast cancer QLICP-BR (V2.0). We assessed the associations between potential influencing factors and QOL using multiple linear regression models. The general mean QOL score for our population was 70.24 with SD = 8.70. Results indicated that medical insurance, drinking history, alkaline phosphatase, serum chloride ion level, serum calcium ion level, serum phosphorus ion level, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, red cell volume distribution width and platelet had significant associations with QOL of breast cancer patients. Our results emphasized that many factors are affecting QOL of breast cancer patients, which may provide a reference for targeted management or intervention strategies of breast cancer patients to improve their QOL.

Effects of Structured Expressive Writing on Quality of Life and Perceived Self-Care Self-Efficacy of Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy in Central China: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Expressive writing is a supportive psychological intervention allowing an individual to disclose and express their deepest thoughts and feelings related to personal traumatic experiences through writing. Previous studies suggested that expressive writing could promote the physical and mental health of cancer patients. The current study was conducted to evaluate the effect of expressive writing based on the theory of cognitive adaptation (TCA) on the quality of life and self-care self-efficacy in patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. A sample of 82 Chinese women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer was randomly assigned to an experimental group (four 20 min writing activities focusing on emotional disclosure) or a control group (no writing activities). The quality of life (QoL) and self-care self-efficacy were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after the intervention, respectively. The sociodemographic characteristics, QoL, and self-care self-efficacy at baseline were comparable between the two groups. Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant effects of the time×group (F = 3.65, p < 0.05) on the QoL and significant effects of time (F = 4.77, p <0.05) on self-care self-efficacy. Compared with the control group, the QoL in the intervention group showed a significant and temporary increase at 2 weeks after the intervention (mean difference = −7.56, p < 0.05). As a low-cost and easily delivered psychological intervention, expressive writing is recommended to reduce stress when there is a lack of available emotional support.

Development and Validation of the Breast Cancer Scale QLICP-BR V2.0 Based on Classical Test Theory and Generalizability Theory

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop and validate the breast cancer scale among the system of quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP-BR V2.0).

Methods

Programmed decision procedures and theories on instrument development were applied to develop QLICP-BR V2.0. A total of 246 breast cancer inpatients were investigated using QLICP-BR V2.0 from hospital admission until discharge. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QLICP-BR V2.0 scale were evaluated by using the classical test theory combined with the generalizability theory (GT), including correlation analysis, multi-trait scaling analysis, factor analyses, t-tests, and also multivariate generalizability theory analysis.

Results

The test–retest reliability of the total scale is 0.79, the Cronbach coefficient is 0.85, and the intra-class correlations coefficient is 0.88. The item–domain correlation analysis showed that the correlation coefficient between items and their own domain is greater than that with other domains except of item GSO4. The exploratory factor analysis showed that three principal components are obtained in the specific module. The outcome of the factor analysis coincides substantially with our theoretical conception. The score difference of each domain of the scale and the total scale before and after treatment is statistically significant (P &lt; 0.05), with the standardized response mean of the total scale being 0.61. According to GT, the generalization coefficient of the scores in the 5 domains is between 0.626 and 0.768, and the reliability index is between 0.557 and 0.695.

Conclusion

QLICP-BR V2.0 exhibited reasonable degrees of validity, reliability, and responsiveness according to classical test and the generalizability theory. The number of items in the scale is appropriate.

Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Differences for the Quality of Life Instrument in Patients With Breast Cancer QLICP-BR (V2.0) Based on Anchor-Based and Distribution-Based Methods

Objective

To determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the breast cancer scale QLICP-BR (V2.0) among the Quality of Life Instruments system for cancer patients (QLICP), which consist of the general module of 32 items classifying into 4 domains and the specific module of 10 items.

Methods

According to the scoring rule of QLICP-BR (V2.0), the scores of each domain and the overall scale were calculated. The MCIDs of this scale were established by anchor-based and distribution-based methods. The anchor method used the Q29 item in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale as anchors and defined the treatment effectiveness of the anchor-based method using criteria A (one level improvement after treatment) and B (at least one level improvement after treatment), while methods of effect size (ES), standard error of measurement (SEM), and reliability change index (RCI) were used in distribution-based methods.

Results

Using the anchor-based method, according to standard A, the MCIDs of the physical domain (PHD), psychological domain (PSD), social domain (SOD), common symptoms and side effect domain (SSD), core/general module (CGD), specific domain (SPD), and the total score (TOT) were 16.24, 11.37, 11.31, 12.07, 11.49, 10.69, and 11.23 respectively; according to standard B, the MCIDs of PHD, PSD, SOD, SSD, CGD, SPD, and TOT were 18.88, 15.14, 14.10, 14.50, 13.93, 12.17, and 14.23 respectively. In the distribution-based MCID study, when ES = 0.8, the MCID values of each domain and the total score of the scale were 9.14, 10.34, 8.34, 10.54, 6.79, 9.73, and 6.96 respectively. The MCIDs calculated when a SEM of 1.96 was used as the intermediary index were 8.38, 11.04, 8.67, 10.00, 7.44, 9.83, and 7.81. The MCIDs calculated when a RCI of 1.96 was used as the intermediary index were 11.84, 15.61, 12.27, 14.14, 10.52, 13.90, and 11.05. Additionally, the MCID value calculated by the two standards of the anchor method was similar to 0.8 ES, 1.96 SEM, and 1.96 RCI.

Conclusion

Using the anchor-based method, 0.8ES, 1.96SEM, and 1.96RCI have a better effect on the minimal clinically important difference of breast cancer scale and were recommended to be the preferred methods for establishing MCID.

Health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer: a review of measures

BACKGROUND

To identify and describe the breast cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments with evidence of validation in the breast cancer population for potential use in patients treated for breast cancer (excluding surgery).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to identify articles that contain psychometric properties of HRQoL instruments used in patients with breast cancer. Relevant literature from January 1, 2009, to August 19, 2019, was searched. Articles published in English that reported psychometric properties (reliability, validity) of HRQoL instruments were identified.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 613 unique records; 131 full-text articles were reviewed; 80 articles presented psychometric data for instruments used in breast cancer (including generic measures). This article reviews the 33 full articles describing psychometric properties of breast cancer-specific HRQoL instruments: EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, FACT-B, FBSI, NFBSI-16, YW-BCI36, BCSS, QuEST-Br, QLICP-BR, INA-BCHRQoL, and two newly developed unnamed measures, one by Deshpande and colleagues (for use in India) and one by Vanlemmens and colleagues (for use among young women and their partners). The articles that described the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and FACT-B centered on validating translations, providing additional support for content validity, and demonstrating acceptability of electronic patient-reported outcome administration. Psychometric properties of the measures were acceptable. Several new measures have been developed in Asia with an emphasis on development on cultural relevance/sensitivity. Others focused on specific populations (i.e., young women with breast cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

Historically, there have been limited options for validated measures to assess HRQoL of patients with breast cancer. A number of new measures have been developed and validated, offering promising options for assessing HRQoL in this patient population. This review supports the reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-B; new translations and electronic versions of these measures further support their use for this population.

Validation of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients - Colorectal Cancer (QLICP-CR) in patients with colorectal cancer in Northeast China

BACKGROUND

Measuring quality of life is important for cancer patients, but there are regional differences in age-standardized colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates which may affect measurement. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients - Colorectal Cancer (QLICP-CR) in colorectal cancer patients in Northeast China, and assess its usefulness for evaluation of quality of life in these patients.

METHODS

From November 2016 to January 2017, 152 patients with colorectal cancer from Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute were surveyed three times using QLICP-CR and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C) to measure their quality of life (on admission, 2-3 days later and at discharge). Reliability was evaluated by internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Validity was examined by item-domain correlation, criterion-related validity and factor construct validity analysis. Responsiveness was assessed using paired Student's t tests and calculating standardized response mean.

RESULTS

Cronbach's α coefficient for QLICP-CR ranged from 0.62 to 0.93. Pearson correlation and intra-class correlation coefficients for QLICP-GM, the five domains and the total scale of QLICP-CR ranged from 0.74 to 0.91 and 0.74 to 0.90. The item-domain correlation analysis showed good convergent validity and discriminant validity. Correlation analysis of domain scores between FACT-C and QLICP-CR showed good criterion-related validity. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that nine and three principal components were extracted from items in the two modules of QLICP-CR, and the contribution rate of cumulative variance was 70.21 and 72.26%. There were significant differences in quality of life between the first and the third measurements, with standardized response mean values ranging from 0.30 to 0.81.

CONCLUSIONS

The QLICP-CR was a reliable, valid and sensitive instrument to measure quality of life in colorectal cancer patients in Northeast China.

Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool

PURPOSE

The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer health-related quality-of-life instruments.

METHODS

We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of health-related quality-of-life instruments used among breast cancer patients. Each instrument was evaluated independently by two researchers, and occasionally a third one, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall score and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): concept and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms.

RESULTS

FACT-B was the instrument with the best global performance, obtaining an overall EMPRO score of 79.27. It was also the most accurate instrument on the Concept and Measurement Model, Reliability, and Interpretability attributes. Four more instruments scored over 50 points on the overall score, which summarizes the five attribute-specific scores: EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, WHO-QOL BREF, and SF-36. An overall score of at least 50 points implies that the use of these instruments could be recommended for assessing health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

The FACT-B scored the highest on overall on our EMPRO evaluation of instruments measuring health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients. However, depending on the purpose of the study, several instruments (EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF) have shown good performance in some of the specific individual dimensions included in the EMPRO.

Development and validation of the nasopharyngeal cancer scale among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP-NA V2.0): combined classical test theory and generalizability theory

OBJECTIVES

This research was designed to develop a nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) scale based on quality of life (QOL) instruments for cancer patients (QLICP-NA). This scale was developed by using a modular approach and was evaluated by classical test and generalizability theories.

METHODS

Programmed decision procedures and theories on instrument development were applied to create QLICP-NA V2.0. A total of 121 NPC inpatients were assessed using QLICP-NA V2.0 to measure their QOL data from hospital admission until discharge. Scale validity, reliability, and responsiveness were evaluated by correlation, factor, parallel, multi-trait scaling, and t test analyses, as well as by generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies of the generalizability theory.

RESULTS

Results of multi-trait scaling, correlation, factor, and parallel analyses indicated that QLICP-NA V2.0 exhibited good construct validity. The significant difference of QOL between the treated and untreated NPC patients indicated a good clinical validity of the questionnaire. The internal consistency (α) and test-retest reliability coefficients (intra-class correlations) of each domain, as well as the overall scale, were all >0.70. Ceiling effects were not found in all domains and most facets, except for common side effects (24.8 %) in the domain of common symptoms and side effects, tumor early symptoms (27.3 %) and therapeutic side effects (23.2 %) in specific domain, whereas floor effects did not exist in each domain/facet. The overall changes in the physical and social domains were significantly different between pre- and post-treatments with a moderate effective size (standard response mean) ranging from 0.21 to 0.27 (p < 0.05), but these changes were not obvious in the other domains, as well as in the overall scale. Scale reliability was further confirmed by G coefficients and index of dependability, with more exact variance components based on generalizability theory.

CONCLUSIONS

QLICP-NA V2.0 exhibited reasonable degrees of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. However, this scale must be further improved before it can be used as a practical instrument to evaluate the QOL of NPC patients in China.

Psycho-oncology assessment in Chinese populations: a systematic review of quality of life and psychosocial measures

This systematic review describes psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) measures used in psycho-oncology research with cancer patients and caregivers in China. Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched (1980-2014). Studies reviewed met the following criteria: English language; peer-reviewed; sampled Chinese cancer patients/caregivers; developed, validated or assessed psychometric properties of psychosocial or QOL outcome measures; and reported validation data. The review examined characteristics of measures and participants, translation and cultural adaptation processes and psychometric properties of the measures. Ninety five studies met review criteria. Common characteristics of studies reviewed were they: assessed primarily QOL measures, sampled patients with breast, colorectal, or head and neck cancer, and validated existing measures (>80%) originating in North America or Europe. Few studies reported difficulties translating measures. Regarding psychometric properties of the measures >50% of studies reported subscale reliabilities <α = 0.70, <50% reported test-retest reliability, and <30% reported divergent validity. Few reported sensitivity, specificity or responsiveness. Improved accuracy and transparency of reporting for translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of psychosocial measures is needed. Developing support structures for translating and validating psychosocial measures would enable this and ensure Chinese psycho-oncology clinical practice and research keeps pace with international focus on patient reported outcome measures and data management.

Health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer: a literature-based review of psychometric properties of breast cancer-specific measures

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women in the world. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) at treatment endpoint in cancer clinical trials is widely considered to be increasingly important. The aim of this review was to provide a literature-based assessment of the validity, reliability and responsiveness of breast cancer-specific HRQL instruments in women breast cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The databases consulted were Medline, PubMed, and Embase. The inclusion criteria required studies to: (1) involve use of HRQL measures; (2) cover women with breast cancer under standard treatment (surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapy); (3) involve the validity, reliability, or responsiveness of HRQL; (4) deal with validation of breast cancer-specific HRQL instruments.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were identified through the literature search that met the 4 inclusion criteria. Some seven instruments were assessed among these 16 studies: EORTC QLQ-BR23, FACT-B, FACT-ES, HFRDIS, LSQ- 32, QLICP-BR, and SLDS-BC. EORTC QLQ-BR23, FACT-B, LSQ-32, QLICP-BR, and SLDS-BC are more general breast cancer-specific HRQL instruments. FACT-EB is the endocrine subscale combined with FACT-B in order to measure the side effects and putative benefits of hormonal treatment administered in breast cancer patients. HFRDIS is the HRQL measure focusing on hot flash concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides an overall understanding on the currently available breast cancer-specific HRQL instruments in women breast cancer patients.

Evaluation of cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To assess the procedures of translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SciELO using the keywords: "Questionnaires," "Quality of life," and "Breast cancer." The studies were analyzed in terms of methodological quality according to the guidelines for the procedure of cross-cultural adaptation and the quality criteria for measurement properties of questionnaires.

RESULTS

We found 24 eligible studies. Most of the articles assessed the translation and measurement properties of the instrument EORTC QLQ-BR23. Description about translation and cross-cultural adaptation was incomplete in 11 studies. Translation and back translation were the most tested phases, and synthesis of the translation was the most omitted phase in the articles. Information on assessing measurement properties was provided incompletely in 23 articles. Internal consistency was the most tested property in all of the eligible articles, but none of them provided information on agreement. Construct validity was adequately tested in only three studies that used the FACT-B and QLQ-BR23. Eight articles provided information on reliability; however, only four found positive classification. Responsiveness was tested in four articles, and ceiling and floor effects were tested in only three articles. None of the instruments showed fully adequate quality.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence on cross-cultural adaptations and measurement properties; therefore, it is recommended that caution be exercised when using breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires that have been translated, adapted, and tested.

Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: head and neck cancer (QLICP-HN)

Quality of life for patients with head and neck is now concerned worldwide, but the available QOL instruments are seldom and lack of Chinese culture. Therefore, this paper aimed to develop and validate a QOL instrument for patients with head and neck cancer, QLICP-HN. Using the programmed decision methods and the theory in instrument development, the QLICP-HN was developed and evaluated based on the data measuring QOL three times before and after treatment from a sample of 133 in-patients of head and neck cancer. The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated by indicators such as validity and reliability coefficients: Cronbach α, Pearson r, standardized response mean. The statistical methods included Pearson correlation, multi-trait scaling analysis, factor analysis, cluster analysis and paired t test. The internal consistency α for the overall scale and domains is above 0.70 with the exception of the social function (0.65) and common symptom and side effect (0.66); the test-retest reliability for each domain and the overall scale is higher than 0.80; most correlation coefficients between each item and its domain are above 0.40; the scores differences between pre-treatment and post-treatment have statistical significance for three domains of physical, psychological, the specific, and the overall instrument, with higher SRM of 0.33, 0.59, 0.44 and 0.53. The QLICP-HN is of good validity, reliability and responsiveness, and can be used to assess quality of life for patients with head and neck cancer in China.

Development and validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 for patients with head and neck cancer

GOALS

A simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 was developed using strict translation procedures according to EORTC translation guidelines. Psychometric properties were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three instruments (QLQ-H&N35, QLICP-HN, and FACT-H&N) were used in a sample of 133 patients with head and neck cancer at the time of their admission to the hospital. Each patient was assessed for the second time 1-2 days after hospitalization so that the test-retest reliability could be calculated. A sub-sample of patients was sampled and measured for the third time at discharge in order to evaluate the responsiveness.

RESULTS

Correlation analysis among domains and items of the three instruments showed good construct validity and criterion-related validity. Comparisons of QLQ-H&N35 between treatment groups and age groups supported clinical validity. The internal consistency reliability measured by Cronbach's coefficient α was greater than 0.70 for all multi-item domains, and test-retest reliability coefficients for all domains were greater than 0.80, ranging from 0.88 to 0.95. Score changes between pre- and post-treatment were observed in 6 out of 18 domains, with effect size SRM ranging from 0.27 to 0.87.

CONCLUSIONS

The simplified Chinese version of QLQ-H&N35 demonstrates good validity, reliability, and responsiveness and can be used to measure QOL for Chinese patients with head and neck cancer.