EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-BMT for the measurement of quality of life in bone marrow transplant recipients: a comparison
EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-BMT for the measurement of quality of life in bone marrow transplant recipients: a comparison
复制标题
DOI：
10.1034/j.1600-0609.2000.90143.x
复制
发表时间：
2000-08-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Sperner-Unterwerger, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kopp, M;Schweigkofler, H;Sperner-Unterwerger, B
该研究的目的是比较两种不同的生活质量自我评定工具，即欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织生活质量研究小组开发的EORTC QLQ-C30和FACT-BMT（第3版），癌症治疗的功能评估-骨髓移植量表，其是FACT-G（一般测量）与专门为评估骨髓移植（BMT）患者的生活质量而开发的模块的组合。五十六名BMT接受者在同一阶段完成了EORTC QLQ-C30和FACT-BMT（德语版）。问卷资料以分量表为基础进行相关分析及多元线性回归。EORTC QLQ-C30和FACT-BMT相应分量表之间的相关性范围为r = 0.30（情绪领域）（一致性较差）至r = 0.77（总体QOL）（一致性良好）。这表明，这些工具，尽管有相当大的重叠，可能侧重于生活质量的不同方面，特别是在解决BMT患者的情感和社会问题。FACT-BMT似乎对生活质量的多维结构提供了更全面的概述。EORTC QLQ-C30提供了对生活质量的身体方面的更多见解，并有助于从患者的角度识别有效降低生活质量的症状。QLQ-C30可能会通过纳入目前正在开发的BMT特定模块来改进。因此，我们的结论是，这两种仪器都不能被其他BMT患者的生活质量的评估，并与两种仪器获得的结果的直接比较是可能会产生误导。
The purpose of the study was to compare two different quality-of-life self-rating instruments, namely the EORTC QLQ-C30, developed by the quality-of-life study group of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and the FACT-BMT (version 3), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Bone Marrow Transplantation scale, which is the FACT-G(eneral measure) in combination with a module developed specifically for evaluating quality of life of bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients. Fifty-six BMT recipients completed both the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-BMT (German language version) during the same session. Questionnaire data were analyzed on a subscale basis using correlation analysis and multiple linear regression. Correlations between corresponding subscales of EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-BMT ranged from r = 0.30 for the emotional domain (poor agreement) to r = 0.77 for global QOL (good agreement). This suggests that the instruments, despite considerable overlap, possibly focus on different aspects of QOL, in particular in addressing emotional and social issues of BMT patients. It appears that the FACT-BMT gives a more comprehensive overview regarding the multidimensional construct of quality of life. The EORTC QLQ-C30 gives more insight into the physical aspects of quality of life and helps to identify symptoms which effectively decrease quality of life from the patient's perspective. The QLQ-C30 might be improved by the incorporation of a BMT-specific module currently under development. We therefore conclude that neither of the two instruments can be replaced by the other in the assessment of QOL of BMT patients and that a direct comparison of results obtained with the two instruments is likely to be misleading.