Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T02:56:42.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy–bone marrow transplant (FACT-BMT) quality of life questionnaire in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2021

Vesile Yildiz Kabak Open the ORCID record for Vesile Yildiz Kabak [Opens in a new window] ,
Arzu Demircioglu ,
Elifcan Aladag ,
Sevilay Karahan ,
Hakan Goker ,
Songul Atasavun Uysal  and
Tulin Duger
Vesile Yildiz Kabak*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Arzu Demircioglu
Affiliation:
Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Elifcan Aladag
Affiliation:
Department of Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Sevilay Karahan
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Hakan Goker
Affiliation:
Department of Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Songul Atasavun Uysal
Affiliation:
Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Tulin Duger
Affiliation:
Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Vesile Yildiz Kabak, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Sıhhiye, 06100Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant Version 4 (FACT-BMT) is a widely used instrument to assess quality of life in individuals treated with bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Our aim was to determine the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the FACT-BMT in patients undergoing BMT.

Method

Patients between the age of 20 and 65 years and who had undergone BMT at least 3 months before the study were included. Validity was determined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. To determine convergent validity, the European Cancer Research and Treatment Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire–Cancer30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score were used. Cronbach's alpha, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and item-total correlation (ITC) values were calculated to assess the reliability of the FACT-BMT.

Results

Totally, 114 patients (F/M: 47/67) treated with BMT (mean age: 49.50 ± 12.50 years) were included. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis revealed that the FACT-BMT and the Bone Marrow Transplantation Subscale (BMTS) had sufficient fit. The FACT-BMT was moderately to strongly correlated with the EORTC QLQ-C30, the BFI, and the ECOG performance score (p < 0.001). Cronbach's alpha and ICC values of the FACT-BMT were acceptable (0.925 and 0.956, respectively). The ITC values of each item of the FACT-BMT were also acceptable (ranged from 0.296 to 0.737). Patients undergoing autologous BMT had a significantly higher BMTS score than those undergoing allogeneic BMT (p < 0.05).

Significance of results

The Turkish version of the FACT-BMT is valid, reliable, and sensitive to changes in quality of life in patients undergoing BMT.

Keywords

Bone marrow transplantationQuality of lifeQuestionnaireReliability and validity
Type
Original Article
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 556 - 563
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, S, Bergman, B, et al. (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of National Cancer Institute 85, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arli, SK and Gurkan, A (2017) Validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Brain questionnaire. Cancer Nursing 40, 224–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azam, F, Latif, MF, Farooq, A, et al. (2019) Performance status assessment by using ECOG (eastern cooperative oncology group) score for cancer patients by oncology healthcare professionals. Case Reports in Oncology 12, 728–736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyhun, NE, Can, G, Tiryaki, A, et al. (2016) Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of needs based biopsychosocial distress instrument for cancer patients (CANDI). Iran Red Crescent Medical Journal 18, e27352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonomi, AE, Cella, DF, Hahn, EA, et al. (1996) Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Quality of Life Research 5, 309–320.Google ScholarPubMed
Can, G and Aydiner, A (2011) Development and validation of the Nightingale Symptom Assessment Scale (N-SAS) and predictors of the quality of life of the cancer patients in Turkey. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 15, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cella, DF, Tulsky, DS, Gray, G, et al. (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology 11, 570–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, T, Mercier, M, Bonneterre, J, et al. (2004) French version of FACT-G: Validation and comparison with other cancer-specific instruments. European Journal of Cancer 40, 2243–2252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copelan, D and Edward, A (2006) Hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine 354, 1813–1826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curt, GA (2000) Impact of fatigue on quality of life in oncology patients. Seminars in Hematology 37, 14–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dapueto, JJ, Francolino, C, Servente, L, et al. (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 and Quality of Life Outcomes 1, 32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duyan, V and Duyan, G (2005) Turkish social work students’ attitudes toward sexuality. Journal of Sex Roles 52, 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. New York, USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Garratt, A, Schmidt, L, Mackintosh, A, et al. (2002) Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 324, 1417.Google ScholarPubMed
Guzelant, A, Goksel, T, Ozkok, S, et al. (2004) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: An examination into the cultural validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. European Journal of Cancer Care 13, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hjermstad, MJ, Knobel, H, Brinch, L, et al. (2004) A prospective study of health-related quality of life, fatigue, anxiety and depression 3-5 years after stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplantation 34, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holleman, B, Kamoen, N, Krouwel, A, et al. (2016) Positive vs. negative: The impact of question polarity in voting advice applications. PLoS ONE 11, e0164184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, JR and Temple, R (1985) Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of new anticancer drugs. Cancer Treatment Reports 69, 1155–1159.Google ScholarPubMed
Kamoen, N, Holleman, B, van den Bergh, H, et al. (2013) Positive, negative, and bipolar questions: The effect of question polarity on ratings of text readability. Survey Research Methods 7, 181–189.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RM and Ries, AL (2007) Quality of life: Concept and definition. COPD 4, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khera, N, Storer, B, Flowers, ME, et al. (2012) Nonmalignant late effects and compromised functional status in survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kline, P (1986) A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Koo, TK and Li, MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 15, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kopp, M, Schweigkofler, H, Holzner, B, et al. (2000) EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-BMT for the measurement of quality of life in bone marrow transplant recipients: A comparison. European Journal of Haematology 65, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurosawa, S, Yamaguchi, T, Mori, T, et al. (2015) Patient-reported quality of life after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation or chemotherapy for acute leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplantation 50, 1241–1249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laird, BJ, Fallon, M, Hjermstad, MJ, et al. (2016) Quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: Differential association with performance status and systemic inflammatory response. Journal of Clinical Oncology 34, 2769–2775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, AK, Chang, CH, Tai, JW, et al. (2002) Translation and validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) version 4 quality of life instrument into traditional Chinese. Bone Marrow Transplantation 29, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastropietro, AP, Oliveira, EA, Santos, MA, et al. (2007) Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation: Portuguese translation and validation. Revista de Saude Publica 41, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQuellon, RP, Russell, GB, Cella, DF, et al. (1997) Quality of life measurement in bone marrow transplantation: Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) scale. Bone Marrow Transplantation 19, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza, TR, Wang, XS, Cleeland, CS, et al. (1999) The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: Use of the Brief Fatigue Inventory. Cancer 85, 1186–1196.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oksuz, E and Malhan, S (2006) Prevalence and risk factors for female sexual dysfunction in Turkish women. The Journal of Urology 175, 654–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pidala, J, Anasetti, C and Jim, H (2009) Quality of life after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood 114, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera-Fong, L, Benjet, C, Robles García, R, et al. (2020) Patients’ quality of life: Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) instrument for the Mexican population. Palliative and Supportive Care 18, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, R, Ballesteros, M and Arnold, BJ (2011) Validation of the FACT-G scale for evaluating quality of life in cancer patients in Colombia. Quality of Life Research 20, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soudy, H, Maghfoor, I, Elhassan, TAM, et al. (2018) Translation and validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) version 4 quality of life instrument into Arabic language. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 16, 47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoo, H, Lee, K, Lee, J, et al. (2006) Korean translation and validity of FACT-BMT version 4 and the quality of life in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation patients. Quality of Life Research 15, 559–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed