Comparison of two quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients:: The functional assessment of cancer therapy-general and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30
Comparison of two quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients:: The functional assessment of cancer therapy-general and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30
复制标题
DOI：
10.1200/jco.1999.17.9.2932
复制
发表时间：
1999-09-01
影响因子：
45.3
通讯作者：
Sperner-Unterweger, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kemmler, G;Holzner, B;Sperner-Unterweger, B
目的：为了比较癌症患者的两种生活质量（QOL）问卷，欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织生活质量量表-C30（EORTC QLQ-C30）和癌症治疗功能评估-一般（Fact-G）的基础上的经验数据。244例诊断为乳腺癌或霍奇金病的患者在同一阶段完成了EORTC QLQ-C30和FACT-G（德语版）。问卷调查数据进行了分析，使用相关分析，典型相关，多元线性regression.Results：FACT-G和EORTC QLQ-C30的相应分量表之间的相关性范围从r = 0.14的社会领域（非常差的协议），r = 0.66的物理域（良好的协议），与r valuer的其他领域之间的这些极端。两组分量表的典型相关分析显示，两种仪器之间的总体一致性仅为中等（第一典型相关系数r = 0.85，但总体冗余度小于40%）。在5个FACT-G子量表中，只有1个（身体健康）被EORTC QLQ-C30子量表很好地代表（多元线性回归，R（2）= 0.67），8个EORTC QLQ-C30子量表中只有3个（身体功能、总体QOL、一般症状）被FACT-G子量表相当好地代表（R（2）= 0.43 ta.60）。FACT-G社会幸福感和与医生的关系以及EORTC QLQ-C30认知功能分量表的R（2）值最低（< .15;即，其他工具几乎没有代表性）。结论：对于所研究的样本，发现EORTC QLQ-C30和FACT-G测量的QOL方面明显不同，尽管存在相当大的重叠。提供了可复制性，这意味着两种QOL仪器都不能被另一种取代，并且不可能直接比较两种仪器获得的结果。(C)1999年，美国临床肿瘤学会。
Purpose: To compare two quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaires for cancer patients, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (Fact-G), on the basis of empirical data.Patients and Methods: Two hundred forty-four patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer or Hodgkin's disease completed both the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-G (German language version) during the same session. Questionnaire data were analyzed on a subscale basis using correlation analysis, canonical correlation, and multiple linear regression.Results: Correlations between corresponding subscales of the FACT-G and the EORTC QLQ-C30 ranged from r = .14 for the social domain (very poor agreement) to r = .66 for the physical domain (good agreement), with r valuer for the other domains lying between these extremes. Canonical correlation analysis for the two sets of subscales revealed that overall agreement between the two instruments was only moderate (first canonical correlation coefficient r = .85, but overall redundancy less than 40%). Of the five FACT-G subscales, only one, physical well-being, was well represented by the EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales (multiple linear regression, R(2) = .67), Only three of; eight EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales (physical functioning, global QOL, general symptoms) were represented fairly well by FACT-G subscales (R(2) = .43 ta .60). The lowest R(2) values (< .15; ie, virtually no representation by the other instrument) were found for the FACT-G social well-being and relation with doctors and EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning subscales,Conclusion: For the sample investigated, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-G were found to measure markedly different aspects of QOL, despite considerable overlap. Replicability provided, this implies that neither of the two QOL instruments can be replaced by the other and that a direct comparison of results obtained with the two instruments is not possible. (C) 1999 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.