TY - JOUR
T1 - Cancer patients’ function, symptoms and supportive care needs
T2 - a latent class analysis across cultures
AU - Reese, Jennifer Barsky
AU - Blackford, Amanda
AU - Sussman, Jonathan
AU - Okuyama, Toru
AU - Akechi, Tatsuo
AU - Bainbridge, Daryl
AU - Howell, Doris
AU - Snyder, Claire F.
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD, for her valuable review of a preliminary draft and for assistance with revising the manuscript. Dr. Snyder is supported by the American Cancer Society (MRSG-08-011-01-CPPB) and is a member of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins (P30CA006973). The original Japanese data collection was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Cancer Research and the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. The original Canadian data collection was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Ministry of Health & Long-term Care.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an umbrella term covering a range of outcomes, including symptoms, functioning, health-related quality of life, and supportive care needs. Research regarding the appropriate PRO questionnaires to use is informative. A previously published latent class analysis (LCA) examined patterns of function, symptoms, and supportive care needs in a sample of US cancer patients. The current analysis investigated whether the findings from the original study were replicated in new samples from different countries and whether a larger sample combining all the data would affect the classes identified. Methods: This secondary analysis of data from 408 Japanese and 189 Canadian cancer patients replicated the methods used in the original LCA using data from 117 US cancer patients. In all samples, subjects completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). We first dichotomized individual function, symptom, and need domain scores. We then performed LCA to investigate the patterns of domains for each of the outcomes, both in the individual country samples and then combining the data from all three samples. Results: Across all analyses, class assignment was made by level of function, symptoms, or needs. In individual samples, only two-class models (“high” vs. “low”) were generally identifiable while in the combined sample, three-class models (“high” vs. “moderate” vs. “low”) best fit the data for all outcomes. Conclusions: In this analysis, the level of burden experienced by patients was the key factor in defining classes.
AB - Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an umbrella term covering a range of outcomes, including symptoms, functioning, health-related quality of life, and supportive care needs. Research regarding the appropriate PRO questionnaires to use is informative. A previously published latent class analysis (LCA) examined patterns of function, symptoms, and supportive care needs in a sample of US cancer patients. The current analysis investigated whether the findings from the original study were replicated in new samples from different countries and whether a larger sample combining all the data would affect the classes identified. Methods: This secondary analysis of data from 408 Japanese and 189 Canadian cancer patients replicated the methods used in the original LCA using data from 117 US cancer patients. In all samples, subjects completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). We first dichotomized individual function, symptom, and need domain scores. We then performed LCA to investigate the patterns of domains for each of the outcomes, both in the individual country samples and then combining the data from all three samples. Results: Across all analyses, class assignment was made by level of function, symptoms, or needs. In individual samples, only two-class models (“high” vs. “low”) were generally identifiable while in the combined sample, three-class models (“high” vs. “moderate” vs. “low”) best fit the data for all outcomes. Conclusions: In this analysis, the level of burden experienced by patients was the key factor in defining classes.
KW - Cancer
KW - Latent class analysis
KW - Patient-reported outcomes
KW - Quality of life
KW - Supportive care needs
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937512058&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937512058&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-014-0629-4
DO - 10.1007/s11136-014-0629-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 24482185
AN - SCOPUS:84937512058
VL - 24
SP - 135
EP - 146
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
SN - 0962-9343
IS - 1
ER -