Assessing the reliability of a novel cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D) and comparing its validity to EQ-5D-5L in colorectal cancer patients.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03774-1
Yiyin Cao, Huan Zhang, Nan Luo, Haofei Li, Ling Jie Cheng, Weidong Huang
{"title":"Assessing the reliability of a novel cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D) and comparing its validity to EQ-5D-5L in colorectal cancer patients.","authors":"Yiyin Cao, Huan Zhang, Nan Luo, Haofei Li, Ling Jie Cheng, Weidong Huang","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03774-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the test-retest reliability of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - 8 Dimension (FACT-8D) for the first time, and to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the distribution properties and validity between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a longitudinal study on Chinese CRC patients, employing Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, and FACT-G during follow-up (2-7 days from baseline). Utility scores for FACT-8D were derived from all available value sets (Australia, Canada and USA), while EQ-5D-5L scores were obtained from corresponding value sets for various countries. We assessed convergent validity using pairwise polychoric correlations between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L; known-groups validity by discriminating participants' clinical characteristics, and effect size (ES) was tested; test-retest reliability for FACT-8D using kappa and weighted Kappa for choice consistency, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method for utility consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 287 patients with CRC at baseline, 131 were included in the retest analysis. The utility scores of FACT-8D were highly positively correlated with EQ-5D-5L across various country value sets (r = 0.65-0.77), and most of the dimensions of FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L were positively correlated. EQ-5D-5L failed to discriminate known-groups in cancer stage across all value sets, whereas both were significant in FACT-8D (ES = 0.35-0.48, ES = 0.38-0.52). FACT-8D showed good test-retest reliability (Cohen's weighted Kappa = 0.494-0.722, ICC = 0.748-0.786).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FACT-8D can be used as a valid and reliable instrument for clinical evaluation of patients with CRC, outperforming EQ-5D-5L in differentiating clinical subgroups and showing promise for cancer practice and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":"3309-3322"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03774-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To examine the test-retest reliability of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - 8 Dimension (FACT-8D) for the first time, and to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the distribution properties and validity between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients.

Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study on Chinese CRC patients, employing Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, and FACT-G during follow-up (2-7 days from baseline). Utility scores for FACT-8D were derived from all available value sets (Australia, Canada and USA), while EQ-5D-5L scores were obtained from corresponding value sets for various countries. We assessed convergent validity using pairwise polychoric correlations between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L; known-groups validity by discriminating participants' clinical characteristics, and effect size (ES) was tested; test-retest reliability for FACT-8D using kappa and weighted Kappa for choice consistency, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method for utility consistency.

Results: Among the 287 patients with CRC at baseline, 131 were included in the retest analysis. The utility scores of FACT-8D were highly positively correlated with EQ-5D-5L across various country value sets (r = 0.65-0.77), and most of the dimensions of FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L were positively correlated. EQ-5D-5L failed to discriminate known-groups in cancer stage across all value sets, whereas both were significant in FACT-8D (ES = 0.35-0.48, ES = 0.38-0.52). FACT-8D showed good test-retest reliability (Cohen's weighted Kappa = 0.494-0.722, ICC = 0.748-0.786).

Conclusion: The FACT-8D can be used as a valid and reliable instrument for clinical evaluation of patients with CRC, outperforming EQ-5D-5L in differentiating clinical subgroups and showing promise for cancer practice and research.

Abstract Image

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
评估新型癌症特异性多属性效用工具(FACT-8D)的可靠性,并比较其与 EQ-5D-5L 在结直肠癌患者中的有效性。
目的首次研究癌症治疗功能评估8维度(FACT-8D)的重测信度,并对FACT-8D和EQ-5D-5L在结直肠癌(CRC)患者中的分布特性和有效性进行正面比较:我们对中国的 CRC 患者进行了一项纵向研究,在基线时使用了癌症治疗功能评估(FACT-G)和 EQ-5D-5L,在随访期间(自基线起 2-7 天)使用了 FACT-G。FACT-8D 的效用评分来自所有可用的数值集(澳大利亚、加拿大和美国),而 EQ-5D-5L 的评分则来自不同国家的相应数值集。我们使用 FACT-8D 和 EQ-5D-5L 之间的成对多变量相关性评估了收敛效度;通过区分参与者的临床特征和效应大小 (ES) 测试了已知组效度;使用卡帕和加权卡帕评估了选择一致性,使用类内相关系数 (ICC) 和布兰德-阿尔特曼法评估了效用一致性,从而评估了 FACT-8D 的重复测试可靠性:在基线的 287 名 CRC 患者中,有 131 人被纳入重测分析。FACT-8D 的效用得分与不同国家的 EQ-5D-5L 值集高度正相关(r = 0.65-0.77),FACT-8D 的大多数维度与 EQ-5D-5L 呈正相关。在所有值集中,EQ-5D-5L 都无法区分癌症分期的已知组别,而在 FACT-8D 中,两者都有显著差异(ES = 0.35-0.48, ES = 0.38-0.52)。FACT-8D显示出良好的测试-重复测试可靠性(科恩加权卡帕=0.494-0.722,ICC=0.748-0.786):结论:FACT-8D 可作为一种有效、可靠的工具,用于对 CRC 患者进行临床评估,在区分临床亚组方面优于 EQ-5D-5L,在癌症实践和研究中大有可为。
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
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Demonstrating responsiveness of the pediatric cardiac quality of life inventory in children and adolescents undergoing arrhythmia ablation, heart transplantation, and valve surgery. Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures assessing recovery from hand fractures: a systematic review. Assessing the reliability of a novel cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D) and comparing its validity to EQ-5D-5L in colorectal cancer patients. Health-related quality of life and caregiver burden of pediatric patients with inborn errors of metabolism in Japan using EQ-5D-Y, PedsQL, and J-ZBI. The SMILE scale: a wellness behavioral tool for patients with cancer.
×
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