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
. 2020 Jan;28(1):141-153.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-04754-9. Epub 2019 Apr 16.

Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7)

Madeleine T King  1 , Meera Agar  2   3   4 , David C Currow  2   5 , Janet Hardy  6 , Belinda Fazekas  2   7 , Nikki McCaffrey  8
Affiliations

Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7)

Madeleine T King et al. Support Care Cancer. 2020 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: Head-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14.

Methods: Secondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants' global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported 'no change' on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance.

Results: FACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59-0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51-0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54-0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test-retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total).

Conclusions: No PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.

Keywords: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL; FACIT-Pal; FACIT-Pal-14; FACT-G7; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. World Health Organization (2015) Definition of palliative care. http://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/ . Accessed July 14 2015
    1. FDA (2009) Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 74(235):65132–65133
    1. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, Schwartz C, Revicki DA, Moinpour CM, McLeod LD, Lyons JC, Lenderking WR, Hinds PS, Hays RD, Greenhalgh J, Gershon R, Feeny D, Fayers PM, Cella D, Brundage M, Ahmed S, Aaronson NK, Butt Z (2013) ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22(8):1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E, Stein RE (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11(3):193–205 - DOI
    1. Osoba D (1994) Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 12(3):608–616. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1994.12.3.608 - DOI

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources