Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: Guidance for Use in Research and Clinical Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer

Abstract

Since 1988, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System has evolved from a cancer-specific measure of health-related quality of life in breast, lung, and colon cancer, to include multiple cancer site-specific subscales and measures designed for several other chronic conditions, disease symptoms, treatment side effects, and patient-centered outcomes. There are now more than 700 items comprising more than 100 measures, some of which are assessed in over 70 languages. Patient-centeredness has always been at the heart of its development, emphasizing two fundamental principles of life quality: subjectivity and multidimensionality. Published data on reference groups (cancer and general population) for many of the scales allow a basis for score interpretation, and an expanding body of evidence supports values for meaningful differences and change, at individual and group levels. An item library now allows users to customize assessment and build survey forms for specific applications in research and clinical practice, adjusting to the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape in oncology and other chronic diseases.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cella DF, Bonomi AE. Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology. 1995;9(11):47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Osoba D. Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2011;3(2):57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Haraldstad K, et al. A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(10):2641–50.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist. 2009;74(235):65132–3.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Cancer Institute. Cancer statistics. National Cancer Institute; 2020. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Accessed 14 Dec 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miller KD, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(5):363–85.

    Google Scholar 

  7. https://www.cancer.org/treatment/survivorship-during-and-after-treatment/when-cancer-doesnt-go-away.html.

  8. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(5):278–300.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cella D, Stone AA. Health-related quality of life measurement in oncology: advances and opportunities. Am Psychol. 2015;70(2):175.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cella D, et al. Quality of life outcomes for cabozantinib versus everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: METEOR phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(8):757.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cella D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):297–310.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bouchard LC, Aaronson N, Gondek K, Cella D. Cancer symptom response as an oncology clinical trial end point. Expert Rev Qual Life Cancer Care. 2018;3(2–3):35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Basch E, et al. Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(34):5374–80.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Basch E, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1624–32.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cella D, Wagner L. Re-personalizing precision medicine: is there a role for patient-reported outcomes? J Commun Supp Oncol. 2015;13:274–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Atkinson TM, et al. Exploring differences in adverse symptom event grading thresholds between clinicians and patients in the clinical trial setting. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017;143(4):735–43.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jim H, McLeod HL. American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: importance of accurate toxicity data. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1133–4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garcia SF, et al. Implementing electronic health record–integrated screening of patient-reported symptoms and supportive care needs in a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer. 2019;125(22):4059–68.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sisodia RC, et al. Factors associated with increased collection of patient-reported outcomes within a large health care system. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e202764.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gnanasakthy A, Barrett A, Evans E, D’Alessio D, Romano CD. A review of patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA (2012–2016). Value Health. 2019;22(2):203–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cella D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in performance measurement. Research Triangle Park: RTI Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cella DF. Quality of life: the concept. J Palliat Care. 1992;8(3):8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cella DF, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cella DF. Quality of life: concepts and definition. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1994;9(3):186–92.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Quality of life in cancer: definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Investig. 1993;11(3):327–36.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cella DF, Bonomi AE, Lloyd SR, Tulsky DS, Kaplan E, Bonomi P. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer. 1995;12(3):199–220.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brady MJ, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–86.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ward WL, Hahn EA, Mo F, Hernandez L, Tulsky DS, Cella D. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):181–95.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Esper P, Mo F, Chodak G, Sinner M, Cella D, Pienta KJ. Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology. 1997;50(6):920–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. In: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Acquadro C, et al. Emerging good practices for translatability assessment (TA) of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bonomi A, et al. Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Qual Life Res. 1996;5(3):309–20.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wild D, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):212–32.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Beck CT, Bernal H, Froman RD. Methods to document semantic equivalence of a translated scale. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26(1):64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cella D, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Healthmeasures.net. www.healthmeasures.net

  39. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S12.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Khadka J, Gothwal VK, McAlinden C, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. Open University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Condon DM, et al. Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(3):745–53.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Muñiz J. Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology. 2008;4(2):73–9.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tsao M, Barnes E, Danjoux C, Sahgal A, Soliman H, Chow E. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) for assessing quality of life in patients with brain metastases: a comparison of recall periods. J Pain Manag. 2013;6(3):223.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Flynn KE, et al. Can 7 or 30-day recall questions capture self-reported lower urinary tract symptoms accurately? J Urol. 2019;202(4):770–8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lai J-S, Cook K, Stone A, Beaumont J, Cella D. Classical test theory and item response theory/Rasch model to assess differences between patient-reported fatigue using 7-day and 4-week recall periods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):991–7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hahn EA, et al. The talking touchscreen: a new approach to outcomes assessment in low literacy. Psycho-Oncology. 2004;13(2):86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lee MK, et al. Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cella D, et al. Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology. 2012;78(23):1860–7.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11(2):322–33.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ring AE, Cheong KA, Watkins CL, Meddis D, Cella D, Harper PG. A randomized study of electronic diary versus paper and pencil collection of patient-reported outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Patient. 2008;1(2):105–13.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bjorner JB, Rose M, Gandek B, Stone AA, Junghaenel DU, Ware JE Jr. Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):108–13.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Meirte J, et al. Benefits and disadvantages of electronic patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review. JMIR Perioper Med. 2020;3(1):e15588.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kluetz PG, et al. Focusing on Core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms (in eng). Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(7):1553–8. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-15-2035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rosenbloom S, et al. Development and validation of eleven symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer: measurement compliance with regulatory demands. In: The value of innovation: impact on health, life quality, safety, and regulatory research; 2008. p. 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cella D, et al. Development and validation of 11 symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2011;9(3):268–78.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rosenbloom S, et al. Development and validation of eleven symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer: measurement compliance with regulatory demands. In: The value of innovation: impact on health, life quality, safety, and regulatory research. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cella D, Webster K. Linking outcomes management to quality-of-life measurement. Oncology (Williston Park). 1997;11(11A):232–5.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Jensen SE, et al. A new index of priority symptoms in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(2):214–9.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jensen SE, Beaumont JL, Jacobsen PB, Abernethy A, Syrjala KL, Cella D. Measuring priority symptoms in advanced bladder cancer: development and initial validation of a brief symptom index. J Support Oncol. 2013;11(2):86.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hlubocky FJ, et al. A preliminary study of a health related quality of life assessment of priority symptoms in advanced lymphoma: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lymphoma Symptom Index. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(9):1942–6.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Garcia SF, et al. Priority symptoms in advanced breast cancer: development and initial validation of the National comprehensive cancer Network-Functional assessment of cancer Therapy-Breast cancer symptom index (NFBSI-16). Value Health. 2012;15(1):183–90.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Yount S, et al. A brief symptom index for advanced lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2012;13(1):14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Victorson DE, Beaumont JL, Rosenbloom SK, Shevrin D, Cella D. Efficient assessment of the most important symptoms in advanced prostate cancer: the NCCN/FACT-P Symptom Index. Psycho-Oncology. 2011;20(9):977–83.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Colwell HH, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the FACT Colorectal Cancer Symptom Index (FCSI-9): reliability, validity, responsiveness, and clinical meaningfulness. Oncologist. 2010;15(3):308.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Butt Z, et al. Development and validation of a symptom index for advanced hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (NCCN-FACT) Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Symptom Index (NFHSI). Cancer. 2012;118(23):5997–6004.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rothrock NE, et al. Development and initial validation of the NCCN/FACT symptom index for advanced kidney cancer. Value Health. 2013;16(5):789–96.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Oswald LB, Lee JW, Argiris A, Webster KA, Forastiere AA, Cella D. Validation of brief symptom indexes among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1302). Cancer Med. 2020;9(23):8884–94.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Basch E, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(9):dju244.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Pearman T, Yanez B, Peipert J, Wortman K, Beaumont J, Cella D. Ambulatory cancer and US general population reference values and cutoff scores for the functional assessment of cancer therapy. Cancer. 2014;120(18):2902–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Brucker PS, Yost K, Cashy J, Webster K, Cella D. General population and cancer patient norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):192–211.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Butt Z, Peipert J, Webster K, Chen C, Cella D. General population norms for the functional assessment of cancer therapy–Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI). Cancer. 2013;119(2):429–37.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Holzner B, et al. Normative data for functional assessment of cancer therapy general scale and its use for the interpretation of quality of life scores in cancer survivors. Acta Oncol. 2004;43(2):153–60.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Janda M, DiSipio T, Hurst C, Cella D, Newman B. The Queensland cancer risk study: general population norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G). Psycho-Oncology. 2009;18(6):606–14.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bagge A-SL, Carlander A, Fahlke C, Bagge RO. Health-related quality of life (FACT-GP) in general Swedish population. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(2):e7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Montan I, Löwe B, Cella D, Mehnert A, Hinz A. General population norms for the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1313–21.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cella D, Lai JS, Chang CH, Peterman A, Slavin M. Fatigue in cancer patients compared with fatigue in the general United States population. Cancer. 2002;94(2):528–38.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Cella D, Zagari MJ, Vandoros C, Gagnon DD, Hurtz H-J, Nortier JW. Epoetin alfa treatment results in clinically significant improvements in quality of life in anemic cancer patients when referenced to the general population. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(2):366–73.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Lange M, Heutte N, Morel N, Eustache F, Joly F, Giffard B. Cognitive complaints in cancer: the French version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog), normative data from a healthy population. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2016;26(3):392–409.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Lai J-S, et al. Parent-perceived child cognitive function: results from a sample drawn from the US general population. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27(2):285–93.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Munoz AR, Salsman JM, Stein KD, Cella D. Reference values of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-spiritual well-being: a report from the American Cancer Society’s studies of cancer survivors. Cancer. 2015;121(11):1838–44.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution-and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001;39(10):1039–47.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai J-S, Peterman AH, Merkel DE. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2002;24(6):547–61.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Hay RR, D. Reliability and validity (including responsiveness). In: Hays PFR, editor. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 525–39.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Devji T, et al. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1714.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution-and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):172–91.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Victorson D, Soni M, Cella D. Metaanalysis of the correlation between radiographic tumor response and patient-reported outcomes. Cancer. 2006;106(3):494–504.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Fayers PM, Hays RD. Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Salsman JM, Beaumont JL, Wortman K, Yan Y, Friend J, Cella D. Brief versions of the FACIT-fatigue and FAACT subscales for patients with non-small cell lung cancer cachexia. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(5):1355–64.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Rebelo P, Oliveira A, Andrade L, Valente C, Marques A. Minimal clinically important differences for patient-reported outcome measures of fatigue in patients with COPD following pulmonary rehabilitation. Chest. 2020;158(2):550–61.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Garland SN, et al. Prospective evaluation of the reliability, validity, and minimally important difference of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-gastric (FACT-Ga) quality-of-life instrument. Cancer. 2011;117(6):1302–12.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Peipert JD, et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Leukemia instrument in patients with acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for intensive therapy. Cancer. 2020;126(15):3542–51.

    Google Scholar 

  94. King MT, Agar M, Currow DC, Hardy J, Fazekas B, McCaffrey N. 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. 2020;28(1):141–53.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Yount S, et al. A randomized validation study comparing embedded versus extracted FACT Head and Neck Symptom Index scores. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(10):1615–26.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Cella D, et al. Validity of the FACT Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) questionnaire for assessing disease-related symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(5):1105–12.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Cella D, et al. What is a clinically meaningful change on the functional assessment of cancer therapy–lung (FACT-L) questionnaire?: results from eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(3):285–95.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Cella D, Nichol MB, Eton D, Nelson JB, Mulani P. Estimating clinically meaningful changes for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—prostate: results from a clinical trial of patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(1):124–9.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Steel J, Eton DT, Cella D, Olek M, Carr B. Clinically meaningful changes in health-related quality of life in patients diagnosed with hepatobiliary carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(2):304–12.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference (in eng). Contr Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Cheung YT, et al. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the functional assessment of cancer therapy: cognitive function (FACT-Cog) in breast cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):811–20.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Cheng HL, et al. Psychometric testing of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group—Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) subscale in a longitudinal study of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Wong S-F, et al. A prospective study to validate the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced dermatologic toxicities FACT-EGFRI 18 questionnaire: SWOG S1013. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  104. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Discussion document for patient-focused drug development public workshop on guidance 4: incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision-making. Silver Spring: United States Department of Health and Human Services; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  105. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Discussion document for patient-focused drug development public workshop on guidance 3: select, develop or modify fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments. Silver Spring: United States Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Jensen RE, et al. Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2333–44.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Jensen RE, et al. Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort. Cancer. 2017;123(2):327–35.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Coon CD, Cook KF. Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(1):33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Hays RD, Peipert JD. Minimally important differences do not identify responders to treatment. JOJ Sci (Juniper Publishers Inc.). 2018;1(1):4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(8):869–79.

    Google Scholar 

  111. McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):163–9.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui K-K. Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):160–71.

    Google Scholar 

  113. King MT, Dueck AC, Revicki DA. Can methods developed for interpreting group-level patient-reported outcome data be applied to individual patient management? Med Care. 2019;57(Suppl 5 1):S38.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(1):12–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Sherbourne CD, Ryan GW, Coulter ID. Group and individual-level change on health-related quality of life in chiropractic patients with chronic low back or neck pain. Spine. 2019;44(9):647.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Pearman TP, Beaumont JL, Mroczek D, O’Connor M, Cella D. Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy. Cancer. 2018;124(5):991–7.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Peipert J, et al. Increase in side effect bother was associated with early treatment discontinuation in a clinical trial among multiple myeloma patients. American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Wagner LI, et al. Patient-reported predictors of early treatment discontinuation: treatment-related symptoms and health-related quality of life among postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer randomized to anastrozole or exemestane on NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CCTG) MA. 27 (E1Z03). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):537–48.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Yanez B, Pearman T, Lis C, Beaumont J, Cella D. 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. 2013;24(4):1073–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Kimberly A. Webster, J. Devin Peipert & David Cella

  2. FACIT.org, Evanston, IL, USA

    Kimberly A. Webster, Lauren F. Lent, Jason Bredle & David Cella

Authors
  1. Kimberly A. Webster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Devin Peipert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lauren F. Lent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason Bredle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Cella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly A. Webster .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK

    Angelos P. Kassianos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Webster, K.A., Peipert, J.D., Lent, L.F., Bredle, J., Cella, D. (2022). The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: Guidance for Use in Research and Clinical Practice. In: Kassianos, A.P. (eds) Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84701-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84702-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation