Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Head-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14.

Methods

Secondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants’ global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported ‘no change’ on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance.

Results

FACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59–0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51–0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54–0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test–retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total).

Conclusions

No PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization (2015) Definition of palliative care. http://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/. Accessed July 14 2015

  2. FDA (2009) Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 74(235):65132–65133

    Google Scholar 

  3. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, Schwartz C, Revicki DA, Moinpour CM, McLeod LD, Lyons JC, Lenderking WR, Hinds PS, Hays RD, Greenhalgh J, Gershon R, Feeny D, Fayers PM, Cella D, Brundage M, Ahmed S, Aaronson NK, Butt Z (2013) ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22(8):1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E, Stein RE (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11(3):193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Osoba D (1994) Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 12(3):608–616. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1994.12.3.608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Albers G, Echteld MA, de Vet HC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van der Linden MH, Deliens L (2010) Content and spiritual items of quality-of-life instruments appropriate for use in palliative care: a review. J Pain Symptom Manag 40(2):290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Albers G, Echteld MA, de Vet HC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van der Linden MH, Deliens L (2010) Evaluation of quality-of-life measures for use in palliative care: a systematic review. Palliat Med 24(1):17–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216309346593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shahidi J, Bernier N, Cohen SR (2010) Quality of life in terminally ill cancer patients: contributors and content validity of instruments. J Palliat Care 26(2):88–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCaffrey N, Bradley S, Ratcliffe J, Currow DC (2016) What aspects of quality of life are important from palliative care patients’ perspectives? A systematic review of qualitative research. J Pain Symptom Manag 52(2):318–328.e315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones JM, McPherson CJ, Zimmermann C, Rodin G, Le LW, Cohen SR (2011) Assessing agreement between terminally ill cancer patients’ reports of their quality of life and family caregiver and palliative care physician proxy ratings. J Pain Symptom Manag 42(3):354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Petersen MA, Larsen H, Pedersen L, Sonne N, Groenvold M (2006) Assessing health-related quality of life in palliative care: comparing patient and physician assessments. Eur J Cancer 42(8):1159–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lyons KD, Bakitas M, Hegel MT, Hanscom B, Hull J, Ahles TA (2009) Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative care (FACIT-Pal) scale. J Pain Symptom Manag 37(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zeng L, Bedard G, Cella D, Thavarajah N, Chen E, Zhang L, Bennett M, Peckham K, De Costa S, Beaumont JL, Tsao M, Danjoux C, Barnes E, Sahgal A, Chow E (2013) Preliminary results of the generation of a shortened quality-of-life assessment for patients with advanced cancer: the FACIT-Pal-14. J Palliat Med 16(5):509–515. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2012.0595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chiu L, Chiu N, Chow E, Cella D, Beaumont JL, Lam H, Popovic M, Bedard G, Poon M, Wong E, Zeng L, Bottomley A (2014) Comparison of three shortened questionnaires for assessment of quality of life in advanced cancer. J Palliat Med 17(8):918–923. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2014.0012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yanez B, Pearman T, Lis CG, Beaumont JL, Cella D (2013) The FACT-G7: a rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research. Ann Oncol : Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 24(4):1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Blazeby JM, Bottomley A, Fayers PM, de Graeff A, Hammerlid E, Kaasa S, Sprangers MA, Bjorner JB, Group EQoL (2006) The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer 42(1):55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lien K, Zeng L, Nguyen J, Cramarossa G, Culleton S, Caissie A, Lutz S, Chow E (2011) Comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Pal for assessment of quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Expert Rev Dermatol 11(5):541–547. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Currow DC, Quinn S, Agar M, Fazekas B, Hardy J, McCaffrey N, Eckermann S, Abernethy AP, Clark K (2015) Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of octreotide in malignant bowel obstruction. J Pain Symptom Manag 49(5):814–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.09.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hardy J, Quinn S, Fazekas B, Plummer J, Eckermann S, Agar M, Spruyt O, Rowett D, Currow DC (2012) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and toxicity of subcutaneous ketamine in the management of cancer pain. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 30(29):3611–3617. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.42.1081

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Groenvold M, Petersen MA, EORTC_Quality_of_Life_Group obot (2006) Addendum to the EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual: Scoring of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL

  22. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fairclough DL, Cella DF (1996) Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G): non-response to individual questions. Qual Life Res 5(3):321–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61(2):102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Fazekas BS, Woods D, Currow DC (2005) The Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]. BMC palliative care 4:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-684x-4-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J (2015) Health measurement scales—a practical guide to their development and use, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fayers PM, Machin D (2016) Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Alawneh A, Yasin H, Khirfan G, Qayas BA, Ammar K, Rimawi D, Klepstad P (2016) Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL among cancer patients in Jordan. Support Care Cancer 24(6):2455–2462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-3018-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ozcelik H, Guzel Y, Sonmez E, Aksoy F, Uslu R (2016) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL for patients with advanced cancer. Palliat Support Care 14(6):628–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Arraras JI, de la Vega FA, Asin G, Rico M, Zarandona U, Eito C, Cambra K, Barrondo M, Errasti M, Verdun J, Rivadeneira J, Dominguez MA (2014) The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire: validation study for Spanish bone metastases patients. Qual Life Res 23(3):849–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0511-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Miyashita M, Wada M, Morita T, Ishida M, Onishi H, Sasaki Y, Narabayashi M, Wada T, Matsubara M, Takigawa C, Shinjo T, Suga A, Inoue S, Ikenaga M, Kohara H, Tsuneto S, Shima Y (2015) Independent validation of the Japanese version of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL for patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag 49(5):953–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.11.299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Miyazaki K, Suzukamo Y, Shimozuma K, Nakayama T (2012) Verification of the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 palliative (EORTCQLQ-C15-PAL). Qual Life Res 21(2):335–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9939-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nunes NA (2014) The quality of life of Brazilian patients in palliative care: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 PAL (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Support Care Cancer 22(6):1595–1600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2119-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shin DW, Choi JE, Miyashita M, Choi JY, Kang J, Baik YJ, Mo HN, Park J, Kim HJ, Park EC (2011) Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15-Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manag 41(2):478–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Suarez-del-Real Y, Allende-Perez S, Alferez-Mancera A, Rodriguez RB, Jimenez-Toxtle S, Mohar A, Onate-Ocana LF (2011) Validation of the Mexican-Spanish version of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire for the evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients on palliative care. Psychooncology 20(8):889–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang L, Wang N, Zhang J, Liu J, Luo Z, Sun W, Woo SM, Chen C, Zhang K, Miller AR, Guo H, Zhang X, Wang C (2016) Cross-cultural verification of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire in mainland China. Palliat Med 30(4):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216315593671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Siegert R, Selman L, Higginson IJ, Ali Z, Powell RA, Namisango E, Mwangi-Powell F, Gwyther L, Gikaara N, Harding R (2014) A psychometric evaluation of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-palliative care (FACIT-pal) scale with palliative care samples in three African countries. J Pain Symptom Manag 48(5):983–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Caissie A, Nguyen J, Chen E, Zhang L, Sahgal A, Clemons M, Kerba M, Arnalot PF, Danjoux C, Tsao M, Barnes E, Holden L, Danielson B, Chow E (2012) Quality of life in patients with brain metastases using the EORTC QLQ-BN20+2 and QLQ-C15-PAL. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(4):1238–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Caissie A, Zeng L, Nguyen J, Zhang L, Jon F, Dennis K, Holden L, Culleton S, Koo K, Tsao M, Barnes E, Danjoux C, Sahgal A, Simmons C, Chow E (2012) Assessment of health-related quality of life with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL after palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 24(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2011.08.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee YJ, Suh SY, Choi YS, Shim JY, Seo AR, Choi SE, Ahn HY, Yim E (2014) EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL quality of life score as a prognostic indicator of survival in patients with far advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 22(7):1941–1948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2173-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mercieca-Bebber R, Palmer MJ, Brundage M, Calvert M, Stockler MR, King MT (2016) Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open 6(6):e010938. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Luckett T, King MT (2010) Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research--practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. Eur J Cancer 46(18):3149–3157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Snyder CF, Watson ME, Jackson JD, Cella D, Halyard MY, Mayo FDAP-ROCMG (2007) Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health 10(Suppl 2):S76–S85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00270.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Australian Government had no role in trial design, data analysis, or writing of the report, apart from delegated oversight of the PaCCSC Management Advisory Board. We thank the research teams from Southern Adelaide Palliative Services, Barwon Health, Calvary Hospital Kogarah and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre for their contributions to the recruitment of study subjects. We also thank Christine Sanderson, Peter Allcroft, Derek Eng, Jenny Phillips and Katherine Clarke for patient recruitment; Tania Shelby-James, Michael Ashby and Amy Abernethy for their contributions to trial design and support; and all research officers and coordinators for their invaluable work. We are indebted to all the patients and carers who participated in this study.

Professor King was supported by the Australian Government through Cancer Australia.

Funding

This study was funded through a grant awarded to the Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) from the Australian Government Department of Health under the National Palliative Care Strategy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Madeleine T. King

  2. IMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Meera Agar, David C. Currow & Belinda Fazekas

  3. South West Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Meera Agar

  4. Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, Australia

    Meera Agar

  5. Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, England

    David C. Currow

  6. Department of Palliative and Supportive Care, Mater Health Services, Mater Research –University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Janet Hardy

  7. Discipline of Palliative and Supportive Services, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Belinda Fazekas

  8. Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    Nikki McCaffrey

Authors
  1. Madeleine T. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meera Agar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David C. Currow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janet Hardy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Belinda Fazekas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nikki McCaffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madeleine T. King.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical. The two source trials were publically registered (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTR 12607000501448, ACTRN12608000211369), approved by ethics committees at all sites and monitored by safety monitoring committees. All participants provided written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 65 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 125 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 71 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, M.T., Agar, M., Currow, D.C. et al. Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7). Support Care Cancer 28, 141–153 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04754-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04754-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation