Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Cancer Quality of Life Assessment Tools

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

  • 698 Accesses

Abstract

Using quality of life (QoL) as a patient-reported outcome relies upon good quality assessment tools. This chapter considers the basic foundations and principles to guide development. The importance of creating the rationale for development and planning the development process are highlighted. The key stages in the development process are discussed including the generation of QoL items, construction and piloting/pre-testing an assessment tool. Other issues are briefly considered, for example, moving from development into validation, alongside other areas such as translation, electronic applications and modern measurement approaches. The wider context, including the importance of collaboration with multi-disciplinary experts and patient involvement, is highlighted in developing robust QoL assessment tools.

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. Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D. Using patient reported outcomes to improve healthcare. London: Wiley Blackwell; 2016. ISBN: 978-111-894860-6

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reeve BB, Wyrwuch KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1889–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rothman MJ, Beltran P, Cappelleri C, Lipscomb J, Teschendorf B, Mayo/FDA Patient Reported Outcome Consensus Meeting Group. Patient-reported outcomes: conceptual issues. Value Health. 2007;10:S66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00269.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowling A. Quality of life meanings and measures in social care research. Methods Review 16. NIHR; 2014. Available at: https://sscr.nihr.ac.uk/PDF/MR/MR16.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson NK. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:451–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. WHOQOL Group. Quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December 2009. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

  9. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. ISBN: 978-0199685219

    Google Scholar 

  10. Streiner DL. Clinimetrics vs psychometrics: an unnecessary distinction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1142–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nolte S, Coon C, Hudgens S, Verdam MGE. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS depression item bank: an illustration of classical test theory methods. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;30(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0127-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stover AM, McLeod LD, Langer MM, Chen WH, Reeve BB. State of the psychometric methods: patient-reported outcome measure development and refinement using item response theory. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;3:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0130-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleanthous S, Baric SP, Smith S, Regnault A. Psychometric performance of the PROMIS® depression item bank: a comparison of the 28- and 51-item versions using Rasch measurement theory. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;3:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0131-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roydhouse JK, Gutman R, Keating NL, Mor V, Wilson IB. Proxy and patient reports of health-related quality of life in a national cancer survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0823-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson C, Aaronson N, Blazeby JM, Bottomley A, Fayers P, et al on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. Guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. 4th ed. EORTC Quality of Life Group; 2011. Available at: https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/guidelines_for_developing_questionnaire-_final.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Kline Leidy N, Martin ML, et al. Content validity. Establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14:967–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Kline Leidy N, Martin ML, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14:978–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Basch E, Geoghegan C, Coons SJ, Gnanasakthy A, Slage AF, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and US regulatory review: perspectives from industry, the food and drug administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Jun;1(3):375–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carlton J, Peasgood T, Khan S, Barber R, Bostock J, Keetharuth AD. An emerging framework for fully incorporating public involvement (PI) into patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0172-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D. Patient involvement in the development of patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2016;20:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McKenna SP. Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Med. 2011;9:86. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bjelic-Raisic V, Cardoso F, Cameron D, Brain E, Kuljanic K, et al on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life and Breast Cancer Groups. An international update of the EORTC questionnaire for assessing quality of life in breast cancer patients: EORTC QLQ-BR45. Ann Oncol. 2020;32(2):283–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2019.10.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wheelwright S, Darlington AS, Fitzsimmons D, Fayers P, Arraras JI, et al. International validation of the EORTC QLQ-ELD14 questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life elderly patients with cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:852–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bottomley A, Reijneveld JC, Koller M, Flectner H, Krzysztof A, et al on behalf of the 5th EORTC Quality of Life in Cancer Clinical Trials Conference Faculty. Current state of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research. Eur J Cancer. 2019;121:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Brédart A, Marrel S, Webb AZ, Lasch K, Acquadro C. Interviewing to develop Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research: eliciting patients’ experience. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Luckett T, King MT, Butow PN, Oguchi M, Rankin N, et al. Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:2179–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tax C, Steenbergen ME, Zusterzeel PLM, Bekkers RLM, Rovers MM. Measuring health-related quality of life in cervical cancer patients: a systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0289-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mason SJ, Catto JWF, Downing A, Bottomley SF, Glaser AW, et al. Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for bladder cancer: a systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Br J Urol Int. 2018;122:760–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. CASP UK. Critical appraisal skills programme. 2021. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

  33. Fitzsimmons D, George S, Payne S, Johnson CD. Differences in perception in quality of life issues between health professionals and patients with pancreatic cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 1999;8(2):135–42. doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. PROQOLID. https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/about/about-proqolid. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

  35. Kuliś D, Piccinin C, Bottomley A, Grønvold M. EORTC QUALITY OF LIFE GROUP item library: technical guidelines. 1st ed. EORTC Quality of Life Group; 2018. Available at https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/09/IL-manual-20180305.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wright J, Moghaddam N, Dawson DL. Cognitive interviewing in patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of methodological processes. Qual Psychol. 2019;8(1):2–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cheng KKF, Clark AM. Qualitative methods and patient-reported outcomes: measures development and adaptation. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917702983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaption of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:237–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026410721664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kulis D, Bottomley A, Velikova G, Griemel E, Koller M, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. EORTC quality of life group translation procedures. 4th ed. EORTC Quality of Life Group; 2017. Available at: https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/translation_manual_2017.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McKown S, Acquadro C, Anfray C, Arnold B, Eremenco S, et al. Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer reported outcome, and performance outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00248-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Kline Leidy P, Patrick DL, Petrie CD. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO taskforce report. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1075–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lagergren P, Fayers P, Conroy T, Van Cutsem E, Blazeby JM, on behalf of the European Organisation for Research Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal and Quality of Life Groups. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(14):2066–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Koller M, Hjermstad MJ, Tomaszewski KA, Tomaszewska IM, Hornslien K, et al. on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group, EORTC Lung Cancer Group, and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons. An international study to revise the EORTC questionnaire for assessing quality of life in lung cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(11):2874–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):419–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.0047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kulis D, Holzner B, Koller M, Ruyskart P, Itani A, Williams P, et al on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. Guidance on the implementation and management of EORTC quality of life instruments in electronic applications. Brussels: EORTC; 2018. Available at: https://qol.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/03/ePRO-guidelines.pdf. Last accessed 2 Mar 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Conroy T, Costantini A, Giesinger JM, et al on behalf of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group. International validation of the EORTC CAT Core: a new adaptive instrument for measuring core quality of life domains in cancer. Qual Life Res. 2020;29:1405–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02421-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Basch E, Spertus J, Dudley RA, Wu A, Chuahan C, Cohen P, et al. Methods for developing patient-reported outcome based performance measures (PRO-PMs). Value Health. 2015;18:493–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fitzsimmons D. What are we trying to measure? Rethinking approaches to health outcome assessment for the older person with cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2004;13(5):416–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2004.00548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fitzsimmons D, Gilbert J, Howse F, et al. Systematic review of the use and validation of health-related quality of life instruments in older cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Johnson C, Fitzsimmons D, Gilbert J, et al. Development of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire module for older people with cancer: the EORTC QLQ-ELD15. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(12):2242–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swansea Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

    Deborah Fitzsimmons

  2. Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Sally Wheelwright

Authors
  1. Deborah Fitzsimmons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sally Wheelwright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Fitzsimmons .

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

Fitzsimmons, D., Wheelwright, S. (2022). Developing Cancer Quality of Life Assessment Tools. In: Kassianos, A.P. (eds) Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_4

  • 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