Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33892718›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2021

Psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Uganda.

Allen Naamala, Lars E Eriksson, Jackson Orem, Gorrette K Nalwadda, Zarina Nahar Kabir, Lena Wettergren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Allen NaamalaDepartment of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. namalallen@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9164-1820
Lars E ErikssonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jackson OremDepartment of Medical Oncology, Uganda Cancer Institute, Kampala, Uganda.
Gorrette K NalwaddaDepartment of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Zarina Nahar KabirDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Lena WettergrenDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Uganda Cancer Institute · UGKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SEMakerere University · UGUppsala University · SE

Funding

UCI-African Development Bank Training Scholarship 342/411/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-reported measures play a crucial role in research, clinical practice and health assessment. Instruments used to assess self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) need validation to ensure that they measure what they are intended to, detect true changes over time and differentiate between subjects. A generic instrument measuring HRQoL adapted for use among people living with cancer in Uganda is lacking; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 in patients with cancer in Uganda.

methodsAdult patients with various types of cancer (n = 385) cared for at the Uganda Cancer Institute answered the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Luganda or English language, the two most spoken languages in the country. The two language versions were evaluated with regard to data quality (floor and ceiling effects and missing responses), reliability (internal consistency) and validity (construct, known-group and criterion). Construct validity was examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Mean scores were compared between groups differing in disease stage to assess known-group validity. Criterion validity was examined according to associations between two QLQ-C30 subscales (Global quality of life and Physical function) and the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS).

resultsFloor and ceiling effects were observed for several scales in the Luganda and English versions. All EORTC scales with the exception of Cognitive function (Luganda α = 0.66, English α = 0.50) had acceptable Cronbach's alpha values (0.79-0.96). The CFA yielded good fit indices for both versions (RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05 and CFI = 0.93). Known-group validity was demonstrated with statistically significant better HRQoL reported by patients with disease stages I-II compared to those in stages III-IV. Criterion validity was supported by positive correlations between KPS and the subscales Physical function (Luganda r = 0.75, English r = 0.76) and Global quality of life (Luganda r = 0.59, English r = 0.72).

conclusionThe Luganda and English versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 appear to be valid and reliable measures and can be recommended for use in clinical research to assess HRQoL in adult Ugandans with cancer. However, the cognitive scale did not reach acceptable internal consistency and needs further evaluation.

Indexed as

TranslationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesUgandaCancerCancer careEORTCHealth-related quality of lifeQuality of lifeSub-Saharan

Identifiers

PMID33892718
PMCPMC8066473
OpenAlexW3155141641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.