Top

Published in:

01-04-2010 | Original Article

Validation of the Portuguese version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) in Brazilian cancer patients

Authors: Neli Muraki Ishikawa, Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler, Alessandra Grasso Giglio, Clarissa Seródio da Rocha Baldotto, Carlos José Coelho de Andrade, Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 4/2010

Abstract

Goals of work

The purpose of this study was to validate the Portuguese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) in order to establish its assessment properties, including validity and reliability in a sample of Brazilian cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Two hundred seventy patients with different types of cancer were included for this study; the mean age was 50.5 years. The reliability was assessed by internal consistency and reproducibility. Construct validity was assessed through convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the FACT-F to the SF-36. Discriminant validity of the FACT-F evaluated the ability of the scale to differentiate defined groups, discriminating patients according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status and different stages of disease.

Main results

FACT-F had high internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficient was 0.78 for physical well-being, 0.68 for social/family well-being, 0.75 for emotional well-being, 0.74 for functional well-being, 0.91 for fatigue, and 0.92 for total FACT-F). The range of test–retest intraclass correlation was from 0.72 to 0.91 (p < 0.0001). The Pearson product correlation revealed good correlations between the total FACT-F and subscales of the SF-36 in most dimensions, ranging from r = 0.51 to r = 0.76, except for SF-36 physical (r = 0.31). The positive correlations between the SF-36 vitality scale and FACT-F total (r = 0.76) and the fatigue subscale (r = 0.77) support the convergent validity.

Conclusions

The Portuguese version of FACT-F is a reliable and valid instrument to assess quality of life and fatigue, representing a valid tool to screen cancer-related fatigue in Brazilian cancer patients.

Winningham ML, Nail LM, Burke MB et al (1994) Fatigue and the cancer experience: the state of the knowledge. Oncol Nurs Forum 21(1):23–36PubMed

Yamagishi A, Morita T, Miyashita M, Kimura F (2008) Symptom prevalence and longitudinal follow-up in cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. J Pain Symptom Manage. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.04.015 PubMed

Mota DD, Pimenta CA, Piper BF (2008) Fatigue in Brazilian cancer patients, caregivers, and nursing students: a psychometric validation study of the Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised. Support Care Cancer. doi:10.1007/s00520-008-0518-x PubMed

Curt GGA, GA BW et al (2000) Impact of cancerrelated fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the Fatigue Coalition. Oncologist 5:353–360CrossRefPubMed

Bennett B, Goldstein D, Lloyd A et al (2004) Fatigue and psychological distress—exploring the relationship in women treated for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 40:1689–1695CrossRefPubMed

Romito F, Montanaro R, Corvasce C et al (2008) Is cancer-related fatigue more strongly correlated to haematological or to psychological factors in cancer patients? Support Care Cancer 16(8):943–946CrossRefPubMed

Haghighat S, Akbari ME, Holakouei K et al (2003) Factors predicting fatigue in breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 11(8):533–538CrossRefPubMed

Jacobsen PB, Hann DM, Azzarello LM et al (1999) Fatigue in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: characteristics, course, and correlate. J Pain Symptom Manage 18(4):233–242CrossRefPubMed

Berger AM, VonEssen S, Kuhn BR et al (2003) Adherence, sleep, and fatigue outcomes after adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: results of a feasibility intervention study. Oncol Nurs Forum 30(3):513–522CrossRefPubMed

10.

Minton O, Stone P (2008) A systematic review of the scales used for the measurement of cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Ann Oncol. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn537 PubMed

11.

Cho HJ, Costa E, Menezes PR, Chalder T, Bhugra D, Wessely S (2007) Cross-cultural validation of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire in Brazilian primary care. J Psychosom Res 62(3):301–304CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lent L, Hahn E, Vehemence S et al (1999) Using cross-cultural input to adapt the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) scales. Acta Oncol 38(6):695–702CrossRefPubMed

13.

Webster K, Cella D, Yost K (2003) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Quality Life Outcomes 1:79. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-79 CrossRef

14.

Webster K, Odom L, Peterman A et al (1999) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: validation of version 4 of the core questionnaire. Qual Life Res 8(7):604

15.

Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579PubMed

16.

Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K et al (1997) Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 13(2):63–74CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cella D, Lai JS, Chang CH, Peterman A, Slavin M (2002) Fatigue in cancer patients compared with fatigue in the general United States population. Cancer 94:528–538CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cella D, Yount S, Sorensen M, Chartash E, Sengupta N, Grober J (2005) Validation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy fatigue scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32:811–819PubMed

19.

Chandran V, Bhella S, Schentag C, Gladman DD (2007) Functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue scale is valid in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 66(7):936–939CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cella D (1997) The FACT-anemia scale. A new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol 34(3):13–19PubMed

21.

Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ (2005) A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 28(2):212–232CrossRefPubMed

22.

Arnold BJ, Eremenco E, Chang CH et al (2000) Development of a single Portuguese language version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy general (FACT G) scale. Qual Life Res 9(3):316

23.

Arnold BJ, Eremenco E, Chang CH et al (2001) How much is “very much”? Developing a rating scale for Portuguese speaking countries. Qual Life Res 10(3):2644

24.

Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRefPubMed

25.

McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31(3):247–263CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ciconelli RM, Ferraz MB, Santos W et al (1999) Tradução para a língua portuguesa e validação do questionário genérico de avaliação de qualidade de vida SF-36 (Brasil SF-36). Rev Bras Reumatol 39(3):143–150

27.

Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei E III et al (1960) Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 11:7–33CrossRef

28.

Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL (2005) Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal Testing 5:159–168CrossRef

29.

Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30(1):1–15CrossRefPubMed

30.

Atkinson G, Nevill A (2000) Typical error versus limits of agreement. Sports Med 30(5):375–381CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334CrossRef

32.

Nunnally JM, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

33.

Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF (2003) A comparison of two time intervals for test–retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 56:730–735CrossRefPubMed

34.

Dapueto JJ, Francolino C, Servente L, Chang CH, Gotta I, Levin R, Abreu MC (2003) Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Spanish version 4 in South America: classic psychometric and item response theory analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:32. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-32 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Yoshimura A, Kobayashi K, Fumimoto H et al (2004) Cross-cultural validation of the Japanese Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An). J Nippon Med Sch 71(5):314–322CrossRefPubMed

36.

Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E, Stein REK, Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205CrossRef

37.

Cella D, Nowinski CJ (2002) Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(Suppl 2):s10–s17CrossRefPubMed

38.

Overcash J, Extermann M, Parr J et al (2001) Validity and reliability of the FACT-G scale for use in the older person with cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 24(6):591–596CrossRefPubMed

39.

Smets E, Garssen B, Bonke B, Haes JD (1995) The multidimensional fatigue inventory: psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res 39:315–329CrossRefPubMed

40.

Schwartz A, Meek P (1999) Additional construct validity of the Schwartz Cancer Fatigue Scale. J Nurs Meas 7(1):35–45PubMed

Title: Validation of the Portuguese version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) in Brazilian cancer patients
Authors: Neli Muraki Ishikawa
Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler
Alessandra Grasso Giglio
Clarissa Seródio da Rocha Baldotto
Carlos José Coelho de Andrade
Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain
Publication date: 01-04-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0697-0

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

Goals of work

Materials and methods

Main results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Ways of talking about illness and prognosis in palliative cancer care consultations—two interactional frames

Quality of life, anxiety, and depression in Turkish colorectal cancer patients

Evaluation of two group therapies to reduce fear of progression in cancer patients

A qualitative study of decision-making by breast cancer patients about telling their children about their illness

Osteotomy and primary wound closure in bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: a prospective clinical study with 12 months follow-up

Defunctioning stoma in high ASA grade, aged patients, with bowel occlusion due to advanced cancer: is it still worthwhile?

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer