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 2.4 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":2.4000,"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
Anthropometric estimates can predict satisfaction with breast in a population of asymptomatic women. How to interpret patient-reported outcomes? - Stratified adjusted minimal important changes for the EQ-5D-3L in hip and knee replacement patients. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on outpatient psychiatric population well-being and symptomology utilizing COVID-19 Events Checklist (CEC) and Measurement Based Care. International study to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate outcomes of gender-affirming care - the GENDER-Q. How patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are implemented in healthcare professional and patient organizations? An environmental scan.
×
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:481959085
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