The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) is valid for monitoring quality of life in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Leukemia and Lymphoma

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 290-297

  Yost, Kathleen J ^a   Thompson, Carrie A ^a   Eton, David T ^a   Allmer, Cristine ^a   Ehlers, Shawna L ^a   Habermann, Thomas M ^a   Shanafelt, Tait D ^a   Maurer, Matthew J ^a   Slager, Susan L ^a   Link, Brian K ^b   Cerhan, James R ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Non Hodgkin lymphoma; Patient reported outcomes; Quality of life; Validation studies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BURKITT LYMPHOMA; CHRONIC LYMPHATIC LEUKEMIA; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; FEMALE; FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CANCER THERAPY- GENERAL; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; LARGE CELL LYMPHOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MANTLE CELL LYMPHOMA; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPHOMA, NON-HODGKIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84872034803     PISSN: 10428194     EISSN: 10292403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2012.711830     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2010. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2010.
2. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al., editors. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. Lyon: IARC; 2008.
3. Apredictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin'slymphoma. TheInternational Non-Hodgkin'sLymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. NEngl JMed 1993; 329: 987-994.
4. Drake MT, Maurer MJ, Link BK, et al. Vitamin Dinsufficiency and prognosis in non-Hodgkin' slymphoma. JClin Oncol 2010; 28: 4191-4198.
5. Cella D, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. TheFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. JClin Oncol 1993; 11: 570-579.
6. Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric, Inc.; 2000.
7. Webster K, Cashy J, Cella D. Measuring quality of life (QOL) in patients with non-Hodgkin'slymphoma (NHL): the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym). In: 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research. San Francisco, CA: Springer; 2005. Abstract P-218/1650 (page 2103).
8. Fairclough DL, Cella DF. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G): non-response to individual questions. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 321-329.
9. Cella D, editor. Manual of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System, Version 4.1. Evanston, IL: Center on Outcomes, Research & Education (CORE); 2004.
10. Hahn EA, Cella D, Chassany O, et al. Precision of health-related quality-of-life data compared with other clinical measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82: 1244-1254.
11. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, et al. TheMOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32: 40-66.
12. Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical & modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1986.
13. Locke DE, Decker PA, Sloan JA, et al. Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients. JPain Symptom Manage 2007; 34: 628-638.
14. Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, et al. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001; 94: 149-158.
15. Brucker PS, Yost K, Cashy J, et al. General population and cancer patient norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Eval Health Prof 2005; 28: 192-211.
16. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancerspecificquality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 207-221.
17. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution-and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof 2005; 28: 172-191.
18. Ashing-Giwa KT, Kim J, Tejero JS. Measuring quality of life among cervical cancer survivors: preliminary assessment of instrumentation validity in across-cultural study. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 147-157.
19. Smith AB, Wright P, Selby PJ, et al. ARasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007; 5: 19.
20. Herzog A, Bachman J. Effects of questionnaire length on response quality. Public Opin Q 1981; 45: 549-559.
21. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink L, et al. Measurement in medicine: apractical guide. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
22. Arora NK, Finney Rutten LJ, Gustafson DH, et al. Perceived helpfulness and impact of social support provided by family, friends, and health care providers to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Psychooncology 2007; 16: 474-486.
23. Beijer S, Kempen GI, Pijls-Johannesma MC, et al. Determinants of overall quality of life in preterminal cancer patients. Int JCancer 2008; 123: 232-235.
24. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. TheMOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 705-714.