Dataset Information

Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors' fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue measures are preferable in clinical practice but have limited evidence supporting their use with cancer survivors. We examined the psychometric properties of four Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) measures, including the new FSI-3, in cancer survivors. Examined properties included responsiveness to change and minimally important differences (MIDs).

Methods

We analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials with post-treatment cancer survivors (N = 328). Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing standardized response means for survivors who reported their fatigue as being better, the same, or worse at 2-3 months. Responsiveness to intervention was assessed via effect sizes, and MIDs were estimated by using several methods. We also computed area under the curve (AUC) values to assess FSI measures' discriminative accuracy compared to an established cut-point.

Results

All FSI measures differentiated survivors who reported improvement at 2-3 months from those with stable fatigue, but did not uniformly differentiate worsening fatigue from stable fatigue. Measures showed similar levels of responsiveness to intervention, and MIDs ranged from 0.29 to 2.20 across FSI measures. AUC analyses supported the measures' ability to detect significant fatigue.

Conclusions

Four FSI scales show similar responsiveness to change, and estimated MIDs can inform assessment of meaningful change in fatigue. The FSI-3 shows promise as an ultra-brief fatigue measure for survivors.

SUBMITTER: Mosher CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9308850 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSymptom assessment requires psychometrically validated questionnaires that are easy to use, relevant to the disease, and quick to administer. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MDASI-MPM) was adapted from the general (core) MDASI to assess the severity of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms specific to patients with this condition. The MDASI-MPM includes the 13 core MDASI symptoms, which are experienced by most cancer patients, and 6 MPM-specific items developed via qualitative interviewing, a method favored by the US Food and Drug Administration for instrument item generation and development. Qualitative interviewing that summarizes the item generation and development for the MDASI-MPM is detailed in a separate report. The psychometric study reported here was the next step in developing the validation dossier for the MDASI-MPM.ResultsIn this secondary analysis of data from a Phase II trial, 248 patients provided MDASI-MPM data at multiple timepoints during therapy. Over time, fatigue, pain, shortness of breath, feeling of malaise, and muscle weakness were consistently the worst symptoms reported; symptoms interfered most with work and general activity and least with relations with others. Cronbach coefficient alpha values for all MDASI-MPM subscales were at least 0.88 at baseline and 0.91 during treatment, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Intraclass correlations of at least 0.86 for all MDASI-MPM subscales administered a cycle apart (n = 82) were indicative of good test-retest reliability. Correlations between MDASI-MPM subscales and LCSS-Meso scores were at least 0.70 (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Patients with good performance status had significantly lower scores than did patients with poor performance status (all P < 0.05), supporting evidence for known-group validity and sensitivity. Effect-size differences were 0.69 and higher, indicating medium-to-large effects. The minimally important difference in the MDASI-MPM subscales ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 points on a 0-10 scale.ConclusionsSymptoms specific to a particular cancer, treatment method, or treatment site can be added to the core MDASI to create a tailored, "fit for purpose" instrument. We found the MDASI-MPM to be a valid, reliable, and responsive (sensitive) instrument for assessing the severity of symptoms of patients with MPM and their interference in patients' daily functioning.

Project description:To examine the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference of the 4-m gait speed test in acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors.Secondary analyses of data from two longitudinal follow-up studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability, construct validity (convergent, discriminant, and known group), predictive validity, and responsiveness were examined. The minimal important difference was estimated using anchor- and distribution-based approaches.A national multicenter prospective study (ARDSNet Long-Term Outcome Study) and a multisite prospective study in Baltimore, MD (Improving Care of Acute Lung Injury Patients).Acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors with 4-m gait speed assessment up to 60 months after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDSNet Long-Term Outcome Study, n = 184; Improving Care of Acute Lung Injury Patients, n = 122).Not applicable.Four-meter gait speed was assessed at 6- and 12-month follow-up (ARDSNet Long-Term Outcome Study) and 36-, 48-, and 60-month follow-up (Improving Care of Acute Lung Injury Patients). Excellent test-retest (intraclass correlation, 0.89-0.99 across studies and follow-up) and inter-rater (intraclass correlation, 0.97) reliability were found. Convergent validity was supported by moderate-to-strong correlations (69% of 32 > 0.40) with other physical function measures. Discriminant validity was supported by weak correlations (86% of 28 < 0.30) with mental health measures. Survivors with impaired versus nonimpaired measures of muscle strength and pulmonary function had significantly slower 4-m gait speed (all but one p < 0.05). Furthermore, 4-m gait speed significantly predicted future hospitalization and health-related quality of life. Gait speed changes were consistent with reported changes in function, supporting responsiveness. The estimated 4-m gait speed minimal important difference was 0.03-0.06 m/s.The 4-m gait speed is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of physical function in acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors. The estimated minimal important difference will facilitate sample size calculations for clinical studies evaluating the 4-m gait speed test in acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) specific version of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-I) and King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire (K-BILD) are validated health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments, but no or limited data exist on their responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The objectives of this study were to assess responsiveness of SGRQ-I and K-BILD and determine MCID separately for deterioration and improvement in a large, prospective cohort of patients with IPF in a real-world setting. METHODS:Consecutive patients with IPF were recruited. SGRQ-I, K-BILD, SGRQ, Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, pulmonary function tests and 6-min walk test measurements were obtained at baseline and at six and 12?months; at six and 12?months, patients also completed Global Rating of Change Scales. Responsiveness was assessed using correlation coefficients and linear regression. Cox regression was used for mortality analyses. MCID was estimated using receiver operating characteristic curves with separate analyses for improvement and deterioration. RESULTS:A total of 150 IPF patients were included and 124 completed the 12-month follow-up. Based on all HRQL anchors and most physiological anchors, responsiveness analyses supported the evidence pointing towards SGRQ-I and K-BILD as responsive instruments. Multivariate analyses showed an association between SGRQ-I and mortality (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.36, p?=?0.03) and a trend was found for K-BILD (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.05, p?=?0.12). MCID was estimated for all domains of SGRQ-I and K-BILD. MCID for improvement differed from deterioration for both SGRQ-I Total (3.9 and 4.9) and K-BILD Total (4.7 and 2.7). CONCLUSIONS:SGRQ-I and K-BILD were responsive to change concerning both HRQL and most physiological anchors. MCID was determined separately for improvement and deterioration, resulting in different estimates; especially a smaller estimate for deterioration compared to improvement in K-BILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT02818712. Registered 30 June 2016.