Content comparison of the EORTC CAT-Core, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

Author:

Pilz Micha J.1,Rothmund Maria1,Lidington Emma2,Piccinin Claire3,Arraras Juan I.4,Groenvold Mogens5,Holzner Bernhard1,Leeuwen Marieke6,Petersen Morten Aa.7,Schmidt Heike8,Young Teresa9,Giesinger Johannes M.1

Affiliation:

1. Innsbruck Medical University

2. King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital

3. EORTC

4. Hospital Universitario de Navarra

5. University of Copenhagen

6. The Netherlands Cancer Institute

7. Bispebjerg/Frederiksberg Hospital

8. Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

9. Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre

Abstract

Abstract Objectives In line with the World Health Organizations’ health definition, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures frequently cover aspects of social health. Our study aimed to evaluate the role functioning (RF) and social functioning (SF) contents assessed by PRO measures frequently used in cancer patients. Methods We analysed the item content of the SF and RF domains of the EORTC CAT Core, the EORTC QLQ-C30, the SF-36, and the FACT-G as well as the PROMIS item bank covering the Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities. Following an established methodology we linked item content to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Results The content of 85 items was assigned to three ICF components (‘Activities and Participation’, ‘Body Functions’, and ‘Environmental Factors’). The EORTC CAT Core RF items were mostly related to the first-level ICF categories 'Domestic life' and 'Community, social and civic life', while its SF item bank focused on 'Interpersonal interactions and relationships'. These three categories were also covered by the PROMIS social participation item bank. The FACT-G Social/Family scale focused on environmental factors ('Support and Relationships' and 'Attitudes') while the SF-36 Role-physical/emotional scales had a stronger focus on 'General tasks and demands' and 'Major life areas'. Conclusions Our results highlight conceptual overlap and differences among PRO measures for the assessment of social health in cancer. This information may help to select the most appropriate measure for a specific setting or study purpose and to better understand the possibilities of linking scores across different PRO measures.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference42 articles.

1. World Health Organisation. Constitution of the World Health Organisation. New York; 1946.

2. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization;WHO;Soc Sci Med,1995

3. Methodologic issues in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients;Aaronson NK;Cancer,1991

4. Quality of life end points in cancer clinical trials: review and recommendations;Moinpour CM;J Natl Cancer Inst,1989

5. Quality of life as a primary end point in oncology;Roila FCE;Ann Oncol,2012

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3