背景:癌症及其治疗可对患者的情绪功能产生重大影响。有几种评估情绪功能的患者报告结果测量(PROM)可用,但是内容的差异限制了结果的可比性。为了更好地理解概念(DIS)相似性,我们对常用的PROM进行了内容比较。
方法:我们包括情绪功能项目,scales,和EORTCCAT核心的项目银行,EORTCQLQ-C30,FACT-G,医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADS),SF-36,PRO-CTCAE,和PROMIS(焦虑的项目银行,抑郁症,和愤怒)。项目内容已链接到国际功能分类,残疾,和健康(ICF)以及为PROMIS建立的分层框架。单个项目可以使用多个ICF类别进行编码,但在PROMIS框架中仅分配给一个方面。
结果:这些措施包括132个独特的项目,涵盖ICF组件“身体功能”(136/153编码,88.9%)和“活动和参与”(15/153,9.8%)。大多数ICF编码(112/153,73.2%)涉及第三级类别\'b1528情绪功能,其他指定的\'。根据PROMIS框架,48.5%的项目评估抑郁(64/132项目),其次是焦虑(41/132,31.1%)和愤怒(26/132,19.7%)。EORTC措施涵盖了抑郁症,焦虑,和愤怒,而PROMIS库存为这些概念提供了单独的物料库。事实G,SF-36,PRO-CTCAE和HADS涵盖了抑郁和焦虑,但不是愤怒。
结论:我们的结果提供了对所选PROM的深入概念理解和超越心理测量证据的重要定性信息。这样的信息支持对其分数可以与定量方法有意义地联系的PROM的识别。
Cancer and its treatment can have substantial impact on patients\' emotional functioning. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing emotional functioning are available, but differences in content limit the comparability of results. To better understand conceptual (dis)similarities, we conducted a content comparison of commonly used PROMs.
We included emotional functioning items, scales, and item banks from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-G, Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), SF-36, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS (item banks for anxiety, depression, and anger). Item content was linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and a hierarchical framework established for PROMIS. Single items could be coded with more than one ICF category but were solely assigned to one facet within the PROMIS framework.
The measures comprise 132 unique items covering the ICF components \'Body functions\' (136/153 codings, 88.9%) and \'Activities and participation\' (15/153, 9.8%). Most ICF codings (112/153, 73.2%) referred to the third-level category \'b1528 Emotional functions, other specified\'. According to the PROMIS framework 48.5% of the items assessed depression (64/132 items), followed by anxiety (41/132, 31.1%) and anger (26/132, 19.7%). The EORTC measures covered depression, anxiety, and anger in a single measure, while the PROMIS inventory provides separate item banks for these concepts. The FACT-G, SF-36, PRO-CTCAE and HADS covered depression and anxiety, but not anger.
Our results provide an in-depth conceptual understanding of selected PROMs and important qualitative information going beyond psychometric evidence. Such information supports the identification of PROMs for which scores can be meaningfully linked with quantitative methods.