Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Symptom assessment in ambulatory oncology: initial validation of the nurse-developed Modified Ambulatory Care Flow Sheet (MACFS)

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper reports relationships between symptoms assessed using a newly developed instrument for assessing patient-reported symptoms, the Modified Ambulatory Care Flow Sheet (MACFS), and other symptom assessment measures.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional design, patients on active treatment for colorectal cancer were recruited in an ambulatory setting of a tertiary care cancer center in western Canada. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire—Cancer 30, the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist Modified, Linear analog scales for pain and coping, and the MACFS, all at a single time point.

Results

We found moderate to strong correlations between the MACFS scores and scores on the other symptom measures used. The correlations were not as strong when using the MACFS symptom change scores, as when using the MACFS scores for the presence or absence of a particular symptom.

Conclusions

The MACFS reflects the symptom experience of colorectal cancer patients. Further evaluation in more diverse populations and of the relationship between MACFS symptom scores and quality of life will improve our understanding of the MACFS and of the cancer patient treatment experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doward, L. C., & McKenna, S. P. (2004). Defining patient-reported outcomes. Value in Health, 7(S), S4–S8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Measuring healthy days: Population assessment of health-related quality of life. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  3. de Kort, S. J., Willemse, P. H. B., Habraken, J. M., de Haes, H. C. J. M., Willems, D. L., & Richel, D. J. (2006). Quality of life versus prolongation of life in patients treated with chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: A review of randomized controlled clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer, 42(7), 835–845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arndt, V., Merx, H., Stegmaier, C., Ziegler, H., & Brenner, H. (2004). Quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer 1 year after diagnosis compared with the general population: A population-based study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(23), 4777–4784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Efficace, F., Bottomley, A., Vanvoorden, V., & Blazeby, J. M. (2004). Methodological issues in assessing health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer patients in randomised controlled trials. European Journal of Cancer, 40(2), 187–197.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Armstrong, T. (2003). Symptoms experience: A concept analysis. Oncology Nursing Forum, 30(4), 601–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, V. (2001). The development and evaluation of an instrument to assess the adverse effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. No. SPGS 608. Worthing, UK: NHS Executive South East Research Project Grant Scheme.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dodd, M., Miaskowski, C., & Paul, S. (2001). Symptom clusters and their effect on the functional status of patients with cancer. Oncology Nursing Forum, 28(3), 465–470.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Miaskowski, C., Dodd, M., & Lee, K. (2004). Symptom clusters: The new frontier in symptom management research. Journal of The National Cancer Institute Monographs, 32, 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Greenghalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measure in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science and Medicine, 60(4), 833–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bliven, D., Kaufman, S., & Spertus, J. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10, 15–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sloan, J. A., Aaronson, N., Cappelleri, J. C., Fairclough, D. L. D. H., Varricchio, C. D. S. N., & The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Report. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 479–487.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Osoba, O., Aaronson, N., Zee, B., Sprangers, M., & Te Velde, A. (1997). Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 103–108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Velikova, G., & Wright, P. (2005). Individual patient monitoring. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (pp. 291–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dell, R. B., Holleran, S., & Ramakrishnan, R. (2002). Sample size determination. ILAR Journal, 43(4), 207–213.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Algina, J., & Olejnik, S. (2003). Sample size tables for correlation analysis with application in partial correlation and multiple regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(3), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Horsman, S., Olson, K., & Au, H. J. (2009). Symptom and quality of life assessment in ambulatory oncology: The evaluation of a clinical assessment tool. Paper presented at the meeting of the international society for quality of life research, New Orleans, LA.

  18. Horsman, S., & Au, H. J. (2009). The cancer patient in ambulatory oncology: Routine use of PROs into inform patient, nursing and physician interactions. In M. J. Santana & H. J. Au (Chair) Patient reported outcomes in clinical practice: Evolving science and accumulating experience. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the international society for quality of life research, New Orleans, LA.

  19. Horsman, S., & Au, H. J. (2008). A pilot project to assess clinical application of a PRO in ambulatory oncology. Montevideo: Poster session presented at the meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research.

    Google Scholar 

  20. de Haes, J. C. J. M., & Olschewski, M. (1998). Quality of life assessment in a cross-cultural context: Use of the Rotterdam symptom checklist in a multinational randomized trial comparing CMF and Zoladex (Goserlin) treatment in early breast cancer. Annals of Oncology, 9(7), 745–750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stein, K. D., Denniston, M., Baker, F., Dent, M., Hann, D. M., Bushhouse, S., et al. (2003). Validation of a modified Rotterdam symptom checklist for use with cancer patients in the United States. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 26(5), 975–989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Backer, J. H., Bakas, T., Bennett, S., & Pierce, P. K. (2000). Coping with stress. Programs of nursing research. In V. Hill Rice (Ed.), Handbook of stress, coping and health. Implications for nursing research theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aaronson, N., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B. et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of National Cancer Institute [serial online], 85, 365–375.

  24. Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality of life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 139–144.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Salkind, N. J. (2006). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  26. SPSS for Windows Vista. (2007). Rel. 17.0.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

  27. Arndt, V., Merx, H., Stegmaier, C., Ziegler, H., & Brenner, H. (2006). Restrictions in quality of life in colorectal cancer patients over three years after diagnosis: A population based study. European Journal of Cancer, 42(12), 1848–1857.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gotay, C., & Wilson, M. (1998). Use of quality of life outcome assessments in current cancer clinical trials. Evaluation of Health Professions, 21, 157–178.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. MacDonald, S., Linton, S., & Jansson-Fröjmark, M. (2008). Reconstructing the past on the original pain recall assessment form (OPRA). The Journal of Pain, 10(8), 809–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hermansen-Kobulnicky, C., Wiederholt, J., & Chewning, B. (2004). Adverse effect monitoring: Opportunity for patient care and pharmacy practice. Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association, 44, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ballatori, E., & Roila, F. (2003). Impact of nausea and vomiting on quality of life in cancer patients during chemotherapy. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stull, D. E., Kline Leidy, N., Parasuraman, B., & Chassany, O. (2009). Optimal review periods for patient-reported outcomes: Challenges and potential solutions. Current Medical Research and Opinions, 25(4), 929–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr Karen Kelly and Dr Alex Clarke to the study upon which this article is based and the financial support for the first author provided by the Cross Cancer Institute and Alberta Cancer Board Nurse Practitioner internship program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Canada

    Susan Horsman, Karin Olson, Heather Au & Sunita Ghosh

Authors
  1. Susan Horsman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather Au
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sunita Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Horsman.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horsman, S., Olson, K., Au, H. et al. Symptom assessment in ambulatory oncology: initial validation of the nurse-developed Modified Ambulatory Care Flow Sheet (MACFS). Qual Life Res 21, 899–908 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9998-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9998-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation