Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May 12;3(1):e7.
doi: 10.2196/cancer.7202.

Assessing the Comparability of Paper and Electronic Versions of the EORTC QOL Module for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Josephine Norquist  1 , Diana Chirovsky  2 , Teja Munshi  2 , Chloe Tolley  3 , Charlotte Panter  3 , Adam Gater  3
Affiliations

Assessing the Comparability of Paper and Electronic Versions of the EORTC QOL Module for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Josephine Norquist et al. JMIR Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are important tools for monitoring disease activity and response to treatment in clinical trials and clinical practice. In recent years, there have been movements away from traditional pen-and-paper PROs towards electronic administration. When using electronic PROs (ePROs), evidence that respondents complete ePROs in a similar way to their paper counterparts provides assurance that the two modes of administration are comparable or equivalent. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated disease-specific modules are among the most widely used PROs in oncology. Although studies have evaluated the comparability and equivalence of electronic and original paper versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30, no such studies have been conducted to date for the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35).

Objective: This study aimed to qualitatively assess the comparability of paper and electronic versions of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35.

Methods: Ten head and neck cancer patients in the United States underwent structured cognitive debriefing and usability interviews. An open randomized crossover design was used in which participants completed the two modes of administration allocated in a randomized order. Using a "think-aloud" process, participants were asked to speak their thoughts aloud while completing the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. They were thoroughly debriefed on their responses to determine consistency in interpretation and cognitive process when completing the instrument in both paper and electronic format.

Results: Participants reported that the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 demonstrated excellent qualitative comparability between modes of administration. The proportion of noncomparable responses (ie, where the thought process used by participants for selecting responses appeared to be different) observed in the study was low (11/350 response pairs [35 items x 10 participants]; 3.1%). Evidence of noncomparability was observed for 9 of the 35 items of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 and in no more than 2 participants per item. In addition, there were no apparent differences in level of comparability between individual participants or between modes of administration.

Conclusions: Mode of administration does not affect participants' response to, or interpretation of, items in the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. The findings from this study add to the existing evidence supporting the use of electronic versions of the EORTC instruments when migrated to electronic platforms according to best practice guidelines.

Keywords: EORTC QLQ-C30; comparability; ePRO; head and neck cancer; quality of life questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Interview methodology.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Qualitative comparability of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 (by item).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Qualitative comparability of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 (by participant).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Basch E. The Rise of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology. ASCO Annual Meeting; June 2-6, 2017; Chicago, Illinois. 2017.
    1. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Grønvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Denmark: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
    1. EORTC - Quality of life. http://groups.eortc.be/qol/eortc-qlq-c30 .
    1. Parkin D, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2005 Mar 01;55(2):74–108. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wissinger E, Griebsch I, Lungershausen J, Byrnes M, Travers K, Pashos C. The Humanistic Burden of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(12):A. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources