Top

Supportive Care in Cancer

Published in:

01-06-2012 | Original Article

Psychometric properties of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire for child self-report and importance of mucositis in children treated with chemotherapy

Authors: Arif Manji, Deborah Tomlinson, Marie-Chantal Ethier, Adam Gassas, Anne-Marie Maloney, Lillian Sung

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 6/2012

Abstract

Purpose

The objectives of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the self-report Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire (OMDQ) and to measure the importance of mucositis in children receiving intensive chemotherapy.

Methods

Children ≥12 years of age receiving intensive chemotherapy for leukemia/lymphoma or undergoing stem cell transplantation were asked to complete the OMDQ daily for 21 days after chemotherapy. Other measures of mucositis obtained concurrently with OMDQ included the World Health Organization (WHO) mucositis scale, the pain visual analog scale (VAS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Esophageal Cancer Sub-scale (FACT-ECS). The importance of mucositis was estimated using a VAS, time trade-off technique, and willingness to pay to avoid mucositis.

Results

Fifteen children participated. Test–retest reliability demonstrated at least moderate correlation for all questions within the OMDQ. Assessment of construct validity of the OMDQ revealed at least moderate correlation with WHO, VAS, and FACT-ECS for questions regarding pain, swallowing, drinking, and eating. Effect on sleeping and talking had lower correlations than that expected a priori. The diarrhea question of the OMDQ did not correlate with other measures of mucositis. Severe mucositis is important to children, while mild mucositis is less important to them. Children were willing to pay moderate amounts of money to prevent mucositis.

Conclusions

The OMDQ exhibits test–retest reliability, and most questions show construct validity with the exceptions of the sleep, talking, and diarrhea questions. Therefore, the OMDQ should not be used unmodified as a self-report instrument in children with cancer. Severe mucositis is of importance to these children.

Chen CL, Kuppermann M, Caughey AB, Zane LT (2008) A community-based study of acne-related health preferences in adolescents. Arch Dermatol 144:988–994PubMedCrossRef

Cheng KK, Goggins WB, Lee VW, Thompson DR (2008) Risk factors for oral mucositis in children undergoing chemotherapy: a matched case–control study. Oral Oncol 44:1019–1025PubMedCrossRef

Cheuk DK, Lee TL, Chiang AK, Ha SY, Chan GC (2008) Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for high-risk brain tumors in children. J Neuro-Oncol 86:337–347CrossRef

Colton T (1974) Statistics in medicine. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, p 211

Darling G, Eton DT, Sulman J, Casson AG, Celia D (2006) Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer 107:854–863PubMedCrossRef

Donaldson C (2001) Eliciting patients’ values by use of ‘willingness to pay’: letting the theory drive the method. Health Expect 4:180–188PubMedCrossRef

Druley TE, Hayashi R, Mansur DB, Zhang QJ, Barnes Y, Trinkaus K, Witty S, Thomas T, Klein EE, DiPersio JF, Adkins D, Shenoy S (2009) Early outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic SCT in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies following single fraction TBI. Bone Marrow Transpl 43:307–314CrossRef

Drummond MF (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Drummond MF, Drummond MF Mfteeohcp (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

10.

Figliolia SL, Oliveira DT, Pereira MC, Lauris JR, Mauricio AR, Oliveira DT, Mello de Andrea ML (2008) Oral mucositis in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: analysis of 169 paediatric patients. Oral Dis 14:761–766PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gibson F, Auld EM, Bryan G, Coulson S, Craig JV, Glenny AM (2010) A systematic review of oral assessment instruments: what can we recommend to practitioners in children’s and young people’s cancer care? Cancer Nurs 33:E1–E19PubMedCrossRef

12.

Gold MR (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York

13.

Hanemann W (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66:332–341CrossRef

14.

Hayden JA, Mior SA, Verhoef MJ (2003) Evaluation of chiropractic management of pediatric patients with low back pain: a prospective cohort study. J Manip Physiol Ther 26:1–8CrossRef

15.

Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300PubMedCrossRef

16.

Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Griffith LE, Ferrie PJ (1997) Minimum skills required by children to complete health-related quality of life instruments for asthma: comparison of measurement properties. Eur Respir J 10:2285–2294PubMedCrossRef

17.

Karthaus M, Rosenthal C, Ganser A (1999) Prophylaxis and treatment of chemo- and radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis—are there new strategies? Bone Marrow Transpl 24:1095–1108CrossRef

18.

Press J, Gidron Y, Maimon M, Gonen A, Goldman V, Buskila D (2003) Effects of active distraction on pain of children undergoing venipuncture: who benefits from it? Pain Clin 15:261–269CrossRef

19.

Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R (2007) Measuring health preferences for use in cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. PharmacoEconomics 25:713–726PubMedCrossRef

20.

Ryan M, Watson V (2009) Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 18:389–401PubMedCrossRef

21.

Smith RD (2001) The relative sensitivity of willingness-to-pay and time-trade-off to changes in health status: an empirical investigation. Health Econ 10:487–497PubMedCrossRef

22.

Stiff PJ, Erder H, Bensinger WI, Emmanouilides C, Gentile T, Isitt J, Lu ZJ, Spielberger R (2006) Reliability and validity of a patient self-administered daily questionnaire to assess impact of oral mucositis (OM) on pain and daily functioning in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Bone Marrow Transpl 37:393–401CrossRef

23.

Tomlinson D, Ethier MC, Judd P, Doyle J, Gassas A, Naqvi A, Sung L (2011) Reliability and construct validity of the oral mucositis daily questionnaire in children with cancer. Eur J Cancer 47:383–388PubMedCrossRef

24.

Tomlinson D, Gibson F, Treister N, Baggott C, Judd P, Hendershot E, Maloney AM, Doyle J, Feldman B, Sung L (2008) Challenges of mucositis assessment in children: expert opinion. Eur J Oncol Nurs 12:469–475PubMedCrossRef

25.

Tomlinson D, Isitt JJ, Barron RL, Doyle J, Judd P, Gassas A, Naqvi A, Sung L (2008) Determining the understandability and acceptability of an oral mucositis daily questionnaire. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 25:107–111PubMedCrossRef

26.

Tomlinson D, Judd P, Hendershot E, Maloney AM, Sung L (2007) Measurement of oral mucositis in children: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 15:1251–1258PubMedCrossRef

27.

Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Wiley, New York

28.

World Health Organization (1979) Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 15–22

29.

Yi MS, Britto MT, Sherman SN, Moyer MS, Cotton S, Kotagal UR, Canfield D, Putnam FW, Carlton-Ford S, Tsevat J (2009) Health values in adolescents with or without inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr 154:527–534PubMedCrossRef

Title: Psychometric properties of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire for child self-report and importance of mucositis in children treated with chemotherapy
Authors: Arif Manji
Deborah Tomlinson
Marie-Chantal Ethier
Adam Gassas
Anne-Marie Maloney
Lillian Sung
Publication date: 01-06-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1211-z

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

Audio recordings of mindfulness-based stress reduction training to improve cancer patients’ mood and quality of life—a pilot feasibility study

Awareness of dying: it needs words

Young adult cancer survivors' psychosocial well-being: a cross-sectional study assessing quality of life, unmet needs, and health behaviors

Cognitive behavioral symptom management intervention in patients with cancer: survival analysis

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: psychosocial characteristics and considerations

Symptom improvement as prognostic factor for survival in cancer patients undergoing palliative care: a pilot study

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer