Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).

IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1186/s41687-024-00776-y
Nathan A Clarke, Brendon Wong, Rachael Lawrance, Anders Ingelgård, Ingolf Griebsch, David Cella, Andrew Trigg
{"title":"Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).","authors":"Nathan A Clarke, Brendon Wong, Rachael Lawrance, Anders Ingelgård, Ingolf Griebsch, David Cella, Andrew Trigg","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00776-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients' health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3-4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11327234/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00776-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients' health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds.

Methods: Data from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3-4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9.

Results: NFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国国家综合癌症网络--癌症治疗功能评估--乳腺癌症状指数(NFBSI-16)的有效性、可靠性、反应性和临床意义变化阈值估计值。
背景:乳腺癌是女性最常见的癌症之一:乳腺癌是女性最常见的癌症之一。在乳腺癌临床研究中,患者报告的结果测量用于评估患者与健康相关的生活质量。本研究评估了美国国家综合癌症网络-癌症治疗功能评估-乳腺癌症状指数(NFBSI-16)分量表在晚期/转移性乳腺癌(aBC)患者临床试验中的结构、有效性、可靠性和反应性,并估计了 NFBSI-16 有意义的变化阈值:在对 NFBSI-16 进行心理测量学评估时,纳入了 101 名参加 II 期试验(Xenera-1)的 aBC 患者的数据。通过评估项目间相关性、项目-总相关性和内部一致性(周期 2 和 5)来评估分量表结构。效度通过量表层面的收敛效度(周期 2 和 5)和已知组(基线)进行评估。信度通过第 3-4 个周期的重复测试进行分析,并在第 5、7 和 9 个周期对改善和恶化的反应性进行评估。在第 5、7 和 9 个周期,使用基于锚的方法(辅以基于分布的方法)估算有意义的变化阈值:NFBSI-16的内部一致性是可以接受的,但项目与总分的相关性表明,与总分相比,NFBSI-16的子量表和GP5项目(治疗的副作用)得分可能更受青睐。收敛性和已知群体证据支持 NFBSI-16 的有效性。总分和 DRS-P(疾病相关症状:躯体症状)量表的重测信度为良好至优秀,GP5 项目的重测信度为中等。对病情恶化的反应一般,但由于观察到的病情改善有限,因此无法证明对病情改善的反应。对 DRS-P 和总分进行了基于锚点的有意义变化阈值估算:本研究证明,NFBSI-16 具有理想的心理测量特性,可用于 aBC 的临床研究。该研究还提供了团体和个人层面有意义变化阈值的估计值,以方便未来 aBC 研究中的分数解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials of anemia treatments for people with CKD: a scoping review. Co-designing a framework to communicate patient-centred outcomes in palliative care: involving patients and the public to reframe understanding. Patient reported outcomes improve following lower limb prosthesis and socket and replacement. Validity and reliability testing of the Thai version of the emPHasis-10 questionnaire for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Revisiting minimally important changes for the Oxford Hip and Knee scores.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1