eCross-cultural adaptation of the spine oncology-specific SOSGOQ2.0 questionnaire to German language and the assessment of its validity and reliability in the clinical setting.
Cancer
Health-related quality of life
Measurement comparison
Spinal malignancies
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Sep 2021
23 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
12
02
2021
accepted:
07
07
2021
entrez:
24
9
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The recently developed Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) was proven a valid and reliable instrument measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients with spinal malignancies. A German version was not available. A cross-cultural adaptation of the SOSGOQ2.0 to the German language and its multicenter evaluation. In a multistep process, a cross-cultural adaptation of the SOSGOQ2.0 was conducted. Subsequently, a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study was initiated to assess the reliability and validity of the German adaptation. To assess external construct validity of the cross-cultural adapted questionnaire, a comparison to the established questionnaire QLQ-C30 from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer was conducted. Mean-difference plots were used to measure the agreement between the questionnaires in total score and by domain (deviation from mean up to 10% allowed). Further reliability and validity tests were carried out. Change to baseline was analysed 3-16 weeks later after different interventions occurred. Clinically relevant thresholds in comparison to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were evaluated by ROC curve analysis. We could enroll 113 patients from four different university hospitals (58 females, 55 males). Mean age was 64.11 years (sd 11.9). 80 patients had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher at baseline. External construct validity in comparison to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in total score and by domain was confirmed (range of deviation 4.4 to 9.0%). Good responsiveness for the domains Physical Functioning (P < .001) and Pain (P < .001) could be shown. The group mean values also displayed a difference in the domains of Social Functioning (P = .331) and Mental Health (P = .130), but not significant. The minimum clinically relevant threshold values for the questionnaire ranged from 4.0 to 7.5 points. According to our results, the cross-cultural adapted questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to measure HRQOL in German speaking patients with spinal malignancies. Especially the domains Physical Functioning and Pain showed overall good psychometric characteristics. In this way, a generic questionnaire, such as the EORTC QLQ-C30, can be usefully supplemented by spine-specific questions to increase the overall accuracy measuring HRQOL in patients with spinal malignancies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The recently developed Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) was proven a valid and reliable instrument measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients with spinal malignancies. A German version was not available.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
A cross-cultural adaptation of the SOSGOQ2.0 to the German language and its multicenter evaluation.
METHODS
METHODS
In a multistep process, a cross-cultural adaptation of the SOSGOQ2.0 was conducted. Subsequently, a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study was initiated to assess the reliability and validity of the German adaptation. To assess external construct validity of the cross-cultural adapted questionnaire, a comparison to the established questionnaire QLQ-C30 from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer was conducted. Mean-difference plots were used to measure the agreement between the questionnaires in total score and by domain (deviation from mean up to 10% allowed). Further reliability and validity tests were carried out. Change to baseline was analysed 3-16 weeks later after different interventions occurred. Clinically relevant thresholds in comparison to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were evaluated by ROC curve analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We could enroll 113 patients from four different university hospitals (58 females, 55 males). Mean age was 64.11 years (sd 11.9). 80 patients had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher at baseline. External construct validity in comparison to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in total score and by domain was confirmed (range of deviation 4.4 to 9.0%). Good responsiveness for the domains Physical Functioning (P < .001) and Pain (P < .001) could be shown. The group mean values also displayed a difference in the domains of Social Functioning (P = .331) and Mental Health (P = .130), but not significant. The minimum clinically relevant threshold values for the questionnaire ranged from 4.0 to 7.5 points.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
According to our results, the cross-cultural adapted questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to measure HRQOL in German speaking patients with spinal malignancies. Especially the domains Physical Functioning and Pain showed overall good psychometric characteristics. In this way, a generic questionnaire, such as the EORTC QLQ-C30, can be usefully supplemented by spine-specific questions to increase the overall accuracy measuring HRQOL in patients with spinal malignancies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34556063
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08578-x
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-08578-x
pmc: PMC8459467
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1044Investigateurs
K D Schaser
(KD)
A C Disch
(AC)
M Dreimann
(M)
J D Müller-Broich
(JD)
C Netzer
(C)
D Sauer
(D)
C Heyde
(C)
R Schmidt
(R)
M Kreinest
(M)
M Arand
(M)
U Liljenqvist
(U)
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Qual Life Res. 1993 Aug;2(4):287-95
pubmed: 8220363
Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017 May;8(4):355-362
pubmed: 28736600
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jun 15;35(14):1377-86
pubmed: 20505561
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Aug;38(2):244-57
pubmed: 19364633
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Nov;41(10):1403-9
pubmed: 8560308
Cancer. 2018 Apr 15;124(8):1828-1838
pubmed: 29409108
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 Jan;46(1):89-94
pubmed: 31506180
Allergy. 2012 Jan;67(1):99-106
pubmed: 21951293
J Clin Oncol. 1993 Mar;11(3):570-9
pubmed: 8445433
Oncologist. 2016 Jan;21(1):95-101
pubmed: 26668252
Soz Praventivmed. 2002;47(4):266-77
pubmed: 12415931
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jan 6;18(1):44
pubmed: 29306325
Cancer. 2012 Mar 1;118(5):1457-65
pubmed: 21837676
Spine J. 2014 Dec 1;14(12):2835-40
pubmed: 24704681
Int J Biostat. 2016 Nov 1;12(2):
pubmed: 27838682
Lancet. 2015 Mar 28;385(9974):1206-18
pubmed: 25479696
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Recent Results Cancer Res. 2009;179:141-67
pubmed: 19230539
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012 Apr;12(2):213-9
pubmed: 22458622
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 May;53(5):459-68
pubmed: 10812317
Eur J Cancer. 2009 May;45(7):1146-1152
pubmed: 19097882
Am Psychol. 2015 Feb-Mar;70(2):105-18
pubmed: 25730718
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Oct 15;41 Suppl 20:S212-S217
pubmed: 27753783