Search

Advances in cancer care delivery require revision and further development of questionnaires assessing patients’ perceived quality of care. This study pre‐tested the revised EORTC satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire applicable in both the cancer inpatient and outpatient settings, and its new, outpatient‐specific complementary module. The process of revision, development of the extended application, and pre‐testing of these questionnaires was based on phases I to III of the “EORTC Quality of Life Group Module Development Guidelines.” In phase III, patients in 11 countries in four European regions, South America and Asia completed provisional versions of the questionnaires. Fifty‐seven relevant issues selected from literature reviews and input from experts were operationalized into provisional items, and subsequently translated into ten languages. Assessment of understanding, acceptability, redundancy and relevance by patients (n = 151) from oncology inpatient wards, and outpatient chemotherapy, radiotherapy and consultation settings, led to retention of, deletion of and merging of 40, 14 and 6 items respectively. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for hypothesized questionnaire scales were above 0.80. Our results provide preliminary support for the 33‐item EORTC Satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire and the 7‐item complementary module specific for the outpatient care setting. A large scale phase IV cross‐cultural psychometric study is now underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Older people represent the majority of cancer patients but their specific needs are often ignored in the development of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-ELD15 was developed to supplement the EORTC's core questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, for measuring HRQOL in patients aged >70 years in oncology studies.Methods:Patients (n=518) from 10 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-ELD15 and a debriefing interview. Eighty two clinically stable patients repeated the questionnaires 1 week later (test-retest analysis) and 107 others, with an expected change in clinical status, repeated the questionnaires 3 months later (response to change analysis, RCA).Results:Information from the debriefing interview, factor analysis and item response theory analysis resulted in the removal of one item (QLQ-ELD15QLQ-ELD14) and revision of the proposed scale structure to five scales (mobility, worries about others, future worries, maintaining purpose and illness burden) and two single items (joint stiffness and family support). Convergent validity was good. In known-group comparisons, the QLQ-ELD14 differentiated between patients with different disease stage, treatment intention, number of comorbidities, performance status and geriatric screening scores. Test-retest and RCA analyses were equivocal.Conclusion:The QLQ-ELD14 is a validated HRQOL questionnaire for cancer patients aged 70 years. Changes in elderly patients' self-reported HRQOL may be related to both cancer evolution and non-clinical events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EORTC Quality of Life Study Group has developed a questionnaire for evaluating Quality of Life in international clinical trials: QLQ-C30. The purpose of the present work is to validate the third version of this questionnaire (3.0) for use in Spain. Two hundred and one head and neck cancer patients completed the QLQ-C30 at one or two time points during the treatment and follow-up periods, and a subsample completed the questionnaire on three occasions. Psychometric evaluation of the structure, reliability and validity of the questionnaire was undertaken. The data support the structure and the reliability of the scales. Validity was confirmed in three ways: the interscale correlations are statistically significant and moderate, several scales and items discriminate among groups of patients with different scores on the clinical variables, and some scales reflect significant changes during treatment and the follow-up period. The EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) is a reliable and valid questionnaire when applied to a sample of Spanish head and neck cancer patients. These results are in line with previous studies. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported physical function (PF) is a key endpoint in cancer clinical trials. Using complex statistical methods, common metrics have been developed to compare scores from different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, but such methods do not account for possible differences in questionnaire content. Therefore, the aim of our study was a content comparison of frequently used PRO measures for PF in cancer patients., Methods: Relying on the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) we categorized the item content of the physical domains of the following measures: EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, PROMIS Cancer Item Bank for Physical Function, PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a, and the FACT-G. Item content was linked to ICF categories by two independent reviewers., Results: The 118 items investigated were assigned to 3 components ('d - Activities and Participation', 'b - Body Functions', and 'e - Environmental Factors') and 11 first-level ICF categories. All PF items of the EORTC measures but one were assigned to the first-level ICF categories 'd4 - Mobility' and 'd5 - Self-care', all within the component 'd - Activities and Participation'. The SF-36 additionally included item content related to 'd9 - Community, social and civic life' and the PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a also included content related to 'd6 - domestic life'. The PROMIS Cancer Item Bank (v1.1) covered, in addition, two first-level categories within the component 'b - Body Functions'. The FACT-G Physical Well-being scale was found to be the most diverse scale with item content partly not covered by the ICF framework., Discussion: Our results provide information about conceptual differences between common PRO measures for the assessment of PF in cancer patients. Our results complement quantitative information on psychometric characteristics of these measures and provide a better understanding of the possibilities of establishing common metrics., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In this article published in Volume 21, issue 5, the authors' names were incorrectly stated in the Pubmed abstract as: "Ignacio Arraras J(1), Juan Illarramendi J, de la Cruz S, Asin G, Manterola A, Ibanez B, Salgado E, Cambra K, Zarandona U, Angel Dominguez M, Vera R.". The correct authors' names are: "Arraras JI(1), Illarramendi JJ, de la Cruz S, Asin G, Manterola A, Ibanez B, Salgado E, Cambra K, Zarandona U, Dominguez MA, Vera R.". This error appeared only in the PubMed database and not in the print form of the Journal.

Objectives: The EORTC Quality of Life (QL) Group has developed a questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-PR25, for evaluating QL in prostate cancer. The aim of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQPR25 when applied to a sample of Spanish patients., Materials and Methods: One hundred and thirty-seven prostate cancer patients with localised disease who started radiotherapy with radical intention combined with or without hormonotherapy prospectively completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaires three times: on the first and last day of radiotherapy and in the follow-up period. Psychometric evaluation of the questionnaires' structure, reliability and validity was conducted., Results: Multitrait scaling analysis showed that many of the item-scale correlation coefficients met the standards of convergent and discriminant validity. Exceptions appeared mainly in the scales for bowel symptoms and for hormonal- treatment-related symptoms. Cronbach's coefficients of the scales were good (0.72-0.86) for the urinary symptoms and sexual function scales but they were lower (<0.70) for the bowel and hormonal treatment scales. Most scales of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 had low to moderate intercorrelations. Correlations between the scales of the QLQ-C30 and the module were generally low. Group comparison analyses showed better QL in patients with higher Performance Status. Changes in QL appeared throughout the measurements. These were in line with the treatment process., Conclusions: The EORTC QLQ-PR25 was a reliable and valid instrument when applied to a sample of Spanish prostate cancer patients. These results are in line with those of the EORTC validation study.

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated significantly with hospitalised cancer patients' satisfaction with care. Patients were recruited from four geographical/cultural groups, including five European countries and Taiwan. They rated their level of satisfaction by completing the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire at home. Additionally, data were collected on the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the quality of life of the patients, as well as on institutional characteristics. Of 762 patients recruited, 647 (85%) returned a completed questionnaire. The number of nurses and doctors per bed, institution size, geo-cultural origin, ward setting, teaching/non-teaching setting, treatment toxicity, global health status, participation in clinical trials and education level were all associated significantly at the multivariate level with satisfaction with doctor and nurse interpersonal skills, information provision, availability, and/or overall satisfaction. A number of patient-, institutional- and culture-related factors are associated with the perceived quality of cancer care. Future studies, with appropriate sampling frames and stratification procedures, are needed to better understand cross-national and cross-cultural differences in cancer patient satisfaction.

Little is known about patients' satisfaction with care in oncology hospitals across cultural contexts. Within the EORTC, we developed a 32-item satisfaction with care questionnaire to measure patients' appraisal of hospital doctors and nurses, as well as aspects of care organisation and services. This study assessed the psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32, in a large, international sample of patients with cancer. Patients discharged from a surgery or medical oncology ward in nine countries were invited to complete at home the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 as well as other instruments for psychometric testing. Of 762 eligible patients recruited, 15% failed to return the questionnaire. Of the 647 compliant patients, 63% completed the questionnaires within 15 min and 82% required no help in its completion. Multitrait scaling analysis revealed excellent internal consistency and convergent validity, although some scales within the IN-PATSAT32 were relatively highly correlated. Test-retest data on 113 patients showed high reliability for most scales. Scales of the IN-PATSAT32 and of the QLQ-C30 were not significantly correlated, suggesting that the two questionnaires are assessing quite distinct concepts. The scales of the IN-PATSAT32 were able to discriminate clearly between patients with differing care expectations and differing intentions to recommend their hospital to others. This study supports the acceptability to patients, and the psychometric robustness of the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Further studies are needed to assess the responsiveness of the questionnaire to changes in the structure and process of care over time.