Direkt zum Inhalt

Koller, Michael ; Müller, Karolina ; Nolte, Sandra ; Schmidt, Heike ; Harvey, Christina ; Mölle, Ulrike ; Boehm, Andreas ; Engeler, Daniel ; Metzger, Jürg ; Sztankay, Monika ; Holzner, Bernhard ; Groenvold, Mogens ; Kuliś, Dagmara ; Bottomley, Andrew

Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey

Koller, Michael, Müller, Karolina, Nolte, Sandra , Schmidt, Heike, Harvey, Christina, Mölle, Ulrike, Boehm, Andreas, Engeler, Daniel, Metzger, Jürg, Sztankay, Monika, Holzner, Bernhard, Groenvold, Mogens, Kuliś, Dagmara und Bottomley, Andrew (2021) Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 19 (1), S. 235.

Veröffentlichungsdatum dieses Volltextes: 21 Apr 2022 14:59
Artikel
DOI zum Zitieren dieses Dokuments: 10.5283/epub.52056


Zusammenfassung

Background: The European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales are scored on a 4-point response scale, ranging from not at all to very much. Previous studies have shown that the German translation of the response option quite a bit as massig violates interval scale assumptions, and that ziemlich is a more appropriate ...

Background: The European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales are scored on a 4-point response scale, ranging from not at all to very much. Previous studies have shown that the German translation of the response option quite a bit as massig violates interval scale assumptions, and that ziemlich is a more appropriate translation. The present studies investigated differences between the two questionnaire versions. Methods: The first study employed a balanced cross-over design and included 450 patients with different types of cancer from three German-speaking countries. The second study was a representative survey in Germany including 2033 respondents. The main analyses included compared the ziemlich and massig version of the questionnaire using analyses of covariance adjusted for sex, age, and health burden. Results: In accordance with our hypothesis, the adjusted summary score was lower in the massig than in the ziemlich version; Study 1: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.8 to - 1.3), p = 0.006, Study 2: - 3.1 (95% CI - 4.6 to - 1.5), p < 0.001. In both studies, this effect was pronounced in respondents with a higher health burden; Study 1: - 6.8 (95% CI - 12.2 to - 1.4), p = 0.013; Study 2: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.3 to - 1.7), p = 0.002. Conclusions: We found subtle but consistent differences between the two questionnaire versions. We recommend to use the optimized response option for the EORTC QLQ-C30 as well as for all other German modules.



Beteiligte Einrichtungen


Details

DokumentenartArtikel
Titel eines Journals oder einer ZeitschriftHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes
Verlag:BMC
Ort der Veröffentlichung:LONDON
Band:19
Nummer des Zeitschriftenheftes oder des Kapitels:1
Seitenbereich:S. 235
Datum9 Oktober 2021
InstitutionenMedizin > Zentren des Universitätsklinikums Regensburg > Zentrum für Klinische Studien
Identifikationsnummer
WertTyp
10.1186/s12955-021-01866-xDOI
Stichwörter / KeywordsQUALITY-OF-LIFE; VALIDATION; INSTRUMENT; DOMAINS; Quality-of-life; Patient-reported outcomes; Response scales; Responder behaviour; Cognitive processes
Dewey-Dezimal-Klassifikation600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin
StatusVeröffentlicht
BegutachtetJa, diese Version wurde begutachtet
An der Universität Regensburg entstandenJa
URN der UB Regensburgurn:nbn:de:bvb:355-epub-520569
Dokumenten-ID52056

Bibliographische Daten exportieren

Nur für Besitzer und Autoren: Kontrollseite des Eintrags

nach oben