4.7 Article

The FACT-G7: a rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 1073-1078

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds539

关键词

cancer; health-related quality of life; patient-centered outcomes; symptom index

类别

资金

  1. Amgen
  2. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
  3. Bayer
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. Centocor
  6. Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
  7. Genentech
  8. Eli Lilly and Company
  9. Merck Co.
  10. Novartis
  11. Ortho Biotech
  12. Pfizer
  13. Sanofi-Aventis
  14. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
  15. Cancer Treatment Centers of America(R)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) assessments in research and clinical oncology settings are increasingly important. HRQOL instruments need to be rapid and still maintain the ability to capture the most relevant patient issues in a valid and reliable manner. The current study develops and validates the FACT-G7, a rapid version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Oncology patients with advanced cancer (N = 533) from 11 diseases sites ranked the symptoms and concerns they viewed as 'the very most important' when undergoing cancer treatment, completed the FACT-G, and additional HRQOL measures. Oncology patients' scores were referenced across a general US population sample (N = 2000). We selected the highest priority cancer-related symptoms and concerns endorsed by patients for inclusion in the FACT-G7. Fatigue and ability to enjoy life were ranked the most highly. The results provide preliminary support for the FACT-G7's internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.74) and validity as evidenced by moderate-to-strong relationships with expected criteria. The references for the general population are summarized. The FACT-G7 can be used to assess top-rated symptoms and concerns for a broad spectrum of advanced cancers in clinical practice and research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据