Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, SF‐36, FACT‐G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
Saved in:
| Title: | Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, SF‐36, FACT‐G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Pilz, Micha J. (AUTHOR), Rothmund, Maria (AUTHOR), Lidington, Emma (AUTHOR), Piccinin, Claire (AUTHOR), Arraras, Juan I. (AUTHOR), Groenvold, Mogens (AUTHOR), Holzner, Bernhard (AUTHOR), van Leeuwen, Marieke (AUTHOR), Petersen, Morten Aa. (AUTHOR), Schmidt, Heike (AUTHOR), Young, Teresa (AUTHOR), Giesinger, Johannes M. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Psycho-Oncology. Sep2023, Vol. 32 Issue 9, p1372-1384. 13p. 3 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health, Social skills, Social role, Social participation, Interpersonal relations, Quality of life |
| Abstract: | Objectives: In line with the World Health Organizations' health definition, patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measures frequently cover aspects of social health. Our study aimed to evaluate the role functioning (RF) and social functioning (SF) contents assessed by PRO measures commonly used in cancer patients. Methods: We analysed the item content of the SF and RF domains of the EORTC CAT Core, the EORTC QLQ‐C30, the SF‐36, and the FACT‐G as well as the PROMIS item bank covering the Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities. Following an established methodology we linked item content to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Results: The content of 85 items was assigned to three ICF components ('Activities and Participation', 'Body Functions', and 'Environmental Factors'). The EORTC CAT Core RF items were mostly related to the first‐level ICF categories 'Domestic life' and 'Community, social and civic life', while its SF item bank focused on 'Interpersonal interactions and relationships'. These three categories were also covered by the PROMIS social participation item bank. The FACT‐G Social/Family scale focused on environmental factors ('Support and Relationships' and 'Attitudes') while the SF‐36 Role‐physical/emotional scales had a stronger focus on 'General tasks and demands' and 'Major life areas'. Conclusions: Our results highlight conceptual overlap and differences among PRO measures for the assessment of social health in cancer. This information may help to select the most appropriate measure for a specific setting or study purpose and to better understand the possibilities of linking scores across different PRO measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Psycho-Oncology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives: In line with the World Health Organizations' health definition, patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measures frequently cover aspects of social health. Our study aimed to evaluate the role functioning (RF) and social functioning (SF) contents assessed by PRO measures commonly used in cancer patients. Methods: We analysed the item content of the SF and RF domains of the EORTC CAT Core, the EORTC QLQ‐C30, the SF‐36, and the FACT‐G as well as the PROMIS item bank covering the Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities. Following an established methodology we linked item content to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Results: The content of 85 items was assigned to three ICF components ('Activities and Participation', 'Body Functions', and 'Environmental Factors'). The EORTC CAT Core RF items were mostly related to the first‐level ICF categories 'Domestic life' and 'Community, social and civic life', while its SF item bank focused on 'Interpersonal interactions and relationships'. These three categories were also covered by the PROMIS social participation item bank. The FACT‐G Social/Family scale focused on environmental factors ('Support and Relationships' and 'Attitudes') while the SF‐36 Role‐physical/emotional scales had a stronger focus on 'General tasks and demands' and 'Major life areas'. Conclusions: Our results highlight conceptual overlap and differences among PRO measures for the assessment of social health in cancer. This information may help to select the most appropriate measure for a specific setting or study purpose and to better understand the possibilities of linking scores across different PRO measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10579249 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pon.6188 |
