国际肿瘤学杂志

国际肿瘤学杂志 ›› 2019, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (9): 513-518.doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-422X.2019.09.001

• 卫生健康事业发展70年巡礼 •    下一篇

癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系QLICP（V1.0）及其与欧洲QLQ和美国FACT量表的比较

万崇华1,杨铮2,全鹏1,罗家洪3,孟琼3,李高峰4,寸英丽4   

  1. 1广东医科大学人文与管理学院/生命质量与应用心理研究中心，东莞523808； 2广东医科大学公共卫生学院，东莞523808； 3昆明医科大学公共卫生学院650500； 4云南省肿瘤医院胸外科，昆明650106
  • 收稿日期:2019-08-12 出版日期:2019-09-08 发布日期:2019-09-08
  • 通讯作者: 万崇华 E-mail:wanchh@hotmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金（71974040、81273185）

The system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP) V1.0 and comparisons with relevant European QLQ and American FACT

Wan Chonghua1, Yang Zheng2, Quan Peng1, Luo Jiahong3, Meng Qiong3, Li Gaofeng4, Cun Yingli4   

  1. 1School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China; 2School of Public Health, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China; 3School of Public Health, Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650500, China; 4Department of Chest Surgery, Yunnan Tumor Hospital, Kunming 650106, China
  • Received:2019-08-12 Online:2019-09-08 Published:2019-09-08
  • Contact: Wan Chhonghua E-mail:wanchh@hotmail.com
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China (71974040, 81273185)

PDF

598

PDF (Mobile)

124

摘要： 目的 比较癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系第一版QLICP（V1.0）量表与欧洲癌症研究治疗组织（EORTC）研制的生命质量量表体系（QLQ）和美国结局、研究和教育中心（CORE）研制的癌症治疗功能评价系统（FACT）的异同。方法 采用实测数据分析以及文献报道等方法对上述体系各量表的结构、特点、测量学特性进行分析比较。用内部一致性系数α、重测相关系数r或组内相关系数（ICC）来反映量表的信度；结构效度用条目及领域的相关分析、因子分析情况反映，校标效度用两个量表间的相关系数反映；反应度通过比较治疗前后各领域生命质量的得分均数，并计算各领域标准化反应均数（SRM）来考评。结果 3个量表体系各有特点，测量学特性均符合要求。针对12种癌症的测量结果显示，QLICP（V1.0）的总量表内部一致性系数α为0.67～0.92，FACT为0.79～0.98；QLICP（V1.0）的重测信度（r或ICC）为0.61～0.99，FACT为0.60～0.98；QLICP（V1.0）的SRM为0.25～1.28，FACT为0.11～0.83。但QLICP的结构较好（条目→侧面→领域→总量表的清晰层次结构）且具有中国文化特色。结论 3个量表体系均可作为癌症患者生命质量的测评工具，视情况选用。

关键词: 生活质量, 肿瘤, 行为评定量表, 癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系

Abstract: Objective To compare the differences and similarities among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP) V1.0, the quality of life questionnaire (QLQ) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) from Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE) of America. Methods Based on literatures and our measuring data from patients at hospitals, the constructs, characteristics and psychometrics of the systems above were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach α coefficient for each domain, and testretest reliability through calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient r between the first and second assessments as well as intra-class correlation (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient r (item-domains correlations) and factor analysis. The criterionrelated validity was evaluated by correlating corresponding domains of two instruments. Responsiveness was assessed through comparing the mean difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment with standardized response mean (SRM). Results The instruments of three systems were of different outstanding characteristics with all psychometrics meeting requirements. Measurements for 12 types of cancers showed that the internal consistency reliability Cronbach α coefficient for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.67-0.92, and for FACT was 0.79-0.98. The test-retest reliability (r or ICC) for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.61-0.99, and for FACT was 0.60-0.98. The SRM for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.251.28, and for FACT was 0.11-0.83. However, the QLICP was of better construct (clear hierarchical structure with items→facets→domains→overall) and Chinese culture. Conclusion The instruments of three systems can be used as the instruments to assess quality of life for patients with cancer with selections basing on different settings.

Key words: Quality of life, Neoplasms, Behavior rating scale, Quality of life instruments for cancer patients