Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey

被引:5
|
作者
Koller, Michael [1 ]
Mueller, Karolina [1 ]
Nolte, Sandra [2 ]
Schmidt, Heike [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Harvey, Christina [6 ]
Moelle, Ulrike [7 ]
Boehm, Andreas [7 ]
Engeler, Daniel [8 ]
Metzger, Juerg [9 ]
Sztankay, Monika [10 ,11 ]
Holzner, Bernhard [10 ,11 ]
Groenvold, Mogens [12 ]
Kulis, Dagmara [13 ]
Bottomley, Andrew [13 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Regensburg, Ctr Clin Studies, D-93042 Regensburg, Germany
[2] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Div Psychosomat Med Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[3] Martin Luther Univ Halle Wittenberg, Inst Hlth & Nursing Sci, Halle, Saale, Germany
[4] Univ Hosp Halle Saale, Dept Radiat Med, Univ Clin, Halle, Saale, Germany
[5] Univ Hosp Halle Saale, Outpatient Clin Radiotherapy, Halle, Saale, Germany
[6] St Marienworth Hosp, Bad Kreuznach, Germany
[7] St Georg Hosp, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Leipzig, Germany
[8] Cantonal Hosp St Gallen, Dept Urol, St Gallen, Switzerland
[9] Cantonal Hosp Lucerne, Dept Gen Surg, Luzern, Switzerland
[10] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Psychiat Psychotherapy & Psychosomat, Innsbruck, Austria
[11] Univ Hosp Psychiat II, Innsbruck, Austria
[12] Univ Copenhagen, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg Hosp, Dept Geriatr & Palliat Med, Palliat Care Res Unit, Copenhagen, Denmark
[13] EORTC Headquarters, Qual Life Dept, Brussels, Belgium
关键词
Quality-of-life; Patient-reported outcomes; Response scales; Responder behaviour; Cognitive processes; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; VALIDATION; INSTRUMENT; DOMAINS;
D O I
10.1186/s12955-021-01866-x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales are scored on a 4-point response scale, ranging from not at all to very much. Previous studies have shown that the German translation of the response option quite a bit as massig violates interval scale assumptions, and that ziemlich is a more appropriate translation. The present studies investigated differences between the two questionnaire versions. Methods: The first study employed a balanced cross-over design and included 450 patients with different types of cancer from three German-speaking countries. The second study was a representative survey in Germany including 2033 respondents. The main analyses included compared the ziemlich and massig version of the questionnaire using analyses of covariance adjusted for sex, age, and health burden. Results: In accordance with our hypothesis, the adjusted summary score was lower in the massig than in the ziemlich version; Study 1: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.8 to - 1.3), p = 0.006, Study 2: - 3.1 (95% CI - 4.6 to - 1.5), p < 0.001. In both studies, this effect was pronounced in respondents with a higher health burden; Study 1: - 6.8 (95% CI - 12.2 to - 1.4), p = 0.013; Study 2: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.3 to - 1.7), p = 0.002. Conclusions: We found subtle but consistent differences between the two questionnaire versions. We recommend to use the optimized response option for the EORTC QLQ-C30 as well as for all other German modules.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey
    Michael Koller
    Karolina Müller
    Sandra Nolte
    Heike Schmidt
    Christina Harvey
    Ulrike Mölle
    Andreas Boehm
    Daniel Engeler
    Jürg Metzger
    Monika Sztankay
    Bernhard Holzner
    Mogens Groenvold
    Dagmara Kuliś
    Andrew Bottomley
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19
  • [2] Normative Data of the EORTC QLQ-C30 For the German Population: A Population-Based Survey
    Waldmann, Annika
    Schubert, Daniel
    Katalinic, Alexander
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (09):
  • [3] The validity of EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue scale in advanced cancer patients and cancer survivors
    Knobel, H
    Loge, JH
    Brenne, E
    Fayers, P
    Hjermstad, MJ
    Kaasa, S
    PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2003, 17 (08) : 664 - 672
  • [4] Minimal important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with advanced cancer
    Bedard, Gillian
    Zeng, Liang
    Zhang, Liying
    Lauzon, Natalie
    Holden, Lori
    Tsao, May
    Danjoux, Cyril
    Barnes, Elizabeth
    Sahgal, Arjun
    Poon, Michael
    Chow, Edward
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 10 (02) : 109 - 117
  • [5] Sleep problems in cancer patients: a comparison between the Jenkins Sleep Scale and the single -item sleep scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30
    Hofmeister, Dirk
    Schulte, Thomas
    Hinz, Andreas
    SLEEP MEDICINE, 2020, 71 : 59 - 65
  • [6] The EORTC QLQ-OH17: A supplementary module to the EORTC QLQ-C30 for assessment of oral health and quality of life in cancer patients
    Hjermstad, Marianne Jensen
    Bergenmar, Mia
    Fisher, Sheila E.
    Montel, Sebastien
    Nicolatou-Galitis, Ourania
    Raber-Durlacher, Judith
    Singer, Susanne
    Verdonck-de Leeuw, Irma
    Weis, Joachim
    Yarom, Noam
    Herlofson, Bente B.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2012, 48 (14) : 2203 - 2211
  • [7] Translation and Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 into Indonesian Version for Cancer Patients in Indonesia
    Perwitasari, Dyah Aryani
    Atthobari, Jarir
    Dwiprahasto, Iwan
    Hakimi, Mohammad
    Gelderblom, Hans
    Putter, Hein
    Nortier, Johan W. R.
    Guchelaar, Henk-Jan
    Kaptein, Ad A.
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 41 (04) : 519 - 529
  • [8] Psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Uganda
    Naamala, Allen
    Eriksson, Lars E.
    Orem, Jackson
    Nalwadda, Gorrette K.
    Kabir, Zarina Nahar
    Wettergren, Lena
    HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2021, 19 (01)
  • [9] The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer patients (QLQ-C30): Australian general population reference values
    Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
    Costa, Daniel S. J.
    Norman, Richard
    Janda, Monika
    Smith, David P.
    Grimison, Peter
    Gamper, Eva-Marie
    King, Madeleine T.
    MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2019, 210 (11) : 499 - 506
  • [10] Assessing measurement invariance in the EORTC QLQ-C30
    Janneke van Roij
    Jacobien M. Kieffer
    Lonneke van de Poll-Franse
    Olga Husson
    Natasja J. H. Raijmakers
    John Gelissen
    Quality of Life Research, 2022, 31 : 889 - 901