Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL)

PurposeThis trial assessed the ability to enhance health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation in trials and patient management using computer assistance with a handheld device, called a personal digital assistant. The study assessed ease of use and psychometric properties of this approach, comparing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) paper form with the electronic (eLCSS-QL). Objectives were to: (1) measure completion times; (2) evaluate acceptability by patients, nurses, and physicians; (3) determine the correlation of the eLCSS-QL with the paper version; and (4) determine the feasibility of using a shorter visual analogue scale (VAS) in the electronic version.Patients and methodsPatients were entered at 12 COMET clinics. All had: (a) stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer, (b) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 60, (c) no prior chemotherapy, and (d) received initial courses of docetaxel + platinum. Of the148 patients enrolled, characteristics were: men, 57 %; median, KPS 80 %; and median age, 67 years. Of these, 131 patients completed the evaluation form.ResultsThe eLCSS-QL had excellent acceptance by patients, nurses, and physicians. Patients required 2.2 min (mean) to complete the eLCSS-QL. Reliability coefficients using Cronbach’s alpha were high for the paper (0.84) and electronic (0.88) versions. The correlation coefficient between forms was high (0.92). The length of the VAS on the handheld pc (53 mm versus 100 mm on the paper format) resulted in nearly identical scores.ConclusionsThe high acceptance rate by patients and professionals, the rapid completion time, ease of use, and strong psychometric properties confirm that the electronic LCSS (eLCSS-QL) is practical for use in trials and patient management. This study indicates that computer assistance helps overcome barriers associated with evaluating HRQL and PROs.

[1]  M. Kris,et al.  Quality of life during clinical trials: conceptual model for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) , 1994, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[2]  M. Kris,et al.  Quality of life assessment in individuals with lung cancer: testing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). , 1993, European journal of cancer.

[3]  M. Kris,et al.  A comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scale formats for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): Does format affect patient ratings of symptoms and quality of life? , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[5]  R. Gralla,et al.  Quality of life as a clinical trial endpoint: determining the appropriate interval for repeated assessments in patients with advanced lung cancer , 2004, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[6]  Jenny Morris,et al.  The use of quality of life data in clinical practice , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[7]  D. Tulsky,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. , 1995, Lung cancer.

[8]  C. Earle,et al.  Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: The science of quality-of-life measurement in lung cancer , 2004 .

[9]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[10]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[11]  S. Passik,et al.  The importance of quality-of-life endpoints in clinical trials to the practicing oncologist. , 2000, Hematology/oncology clinics of North America.

[12]  S. Kaasa,et al.  The EORTC QLQ-LC13: a modular supplement to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. , 1994, European journal of cancer.

[13]  M. Kris,et al.  Measurement of quality of life in patients with lung cancer in multicenter trials of new therapies. Psychometric assessment of the lung cancer symptom scale , 1994, Cancer.

[14]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[15]  L. Lin,et al.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. , 1989, Biometrics.

[16]  I J Higginson,et al.  Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Helena Chmura Kraemer,et al.  How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research , 1987 .

[19]  M. Kris,et al.  Normative data and trends in quality of life from the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) , 1999, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[20]  R. Ramlau,et al.  Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  C. Gotay,et al.  Patient‐reported Outcomes in Cancer: A Review of Recent Research and Policy Initiatives , 2007, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.