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
  • [41] Quality of life in patients with primary and metastatic brain cancer as reported in the literature using the EORTC QLQ-BN20 and QLQ-C30
    Chiu, Leonard
    Chiu, Nicholas
    Zeng, Liang
    Zhang, Liying
    Popovic, Marko
    Chow, Ronald
    Lam, Henry
    Poon, Michael
    Chow, Edward
    EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2012, 12 (06) : 831 - 837
  • [42] Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30
    Gundy, Chad M.
    Fayers, Peter M.
    Groenvold, Mogens
    Petersen, Morten Aa
    Scott, Neil W.
    Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.
    Velikova, Galina
    Aaronson, Neil K.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2012, 21 (09) : 1607 - 1617
  • [43] Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale
    Bjorner, JB
    Petersen, MA
    Groenvold, M
    Aaronson, N
    Ahlner-Elmqvist, M
    Arraras, JI
    Brédart, A
    Fayers, P
    Jordhoy, M
    Sprangers, M
    Watson, M
    Young, T
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2004, 13 (10) : 1683 - 1697
  • [44] Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients
    Sneeuw, KCA
    Aaronson, NK
    Sprangers, MAG
    Detmar, SB
    Wever, LDV
    Schornagel, JH
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (07) : 617 - 631
  • [45] Dimensionality and Measurement Invariance of the Italian Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Postoperative Lung Cancer Patients
    Marzorati, Chiara
    Monzani, Dario
    Mazzocco, Ketti
    Pavan, Francesca
    Monturano, Massimo
    Pravettoni, Gabriella
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 10
  • [46] Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients
    Seon Ha Kim
    Min-Woo Jo
    Hwa-Jung Kim
    Jin-Hee Ahn
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10
  • [47] Reliability and Validity of the Arabic Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 Questionnaires
    Jassim, Ghufran
    AlAnsari, Ahmed
    NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TREATMENT, 2020, 16 : 3045 - 3052
  • [48] Underlying dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a Cuban population of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
    Carmen Viada
    Carlos Bouza
    Martha Fors
    Aliuska Frías
    Mabel Alvarez
    Lázara García
    Bárbara Wilkinson
    Camilo Rodríguez
    Tania Crombet
    Javier Ballesteros
    Quality of Life Research, 2020, 29 : 3441 - 3448
  • [49] EORTC QLQ-C30 normative data for the United Kingdom: Results of a cross-sectional survey of the general population
    Young, Teresa
    Velikova, Galina
    Liegl, Gregor
    Rose, Matthias
    Nolte, Sandra
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2024, 204
  • [50] Clinimetrics: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire
    Granger, Catherine L.
    Cavalheri, Vinicius
    JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2022, 68 (02) : 146 - 146