Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey

Koller, Michael; Müller, Karolina; Nolte, Sandra; Schmidt, Heike; Harvey, Christina; Mölle, Ulrike; Boehm, Andreas; Engeler, Daniel; Metzger, Jürg; Sztankay, Monika; Holzner, Bernhard; Groenvold, Mogens; Kuliś, Dagmara; Bottomley, Andrew

doi:10.1186/s12955-021-01866-x

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Table 3 Comparisons between QLQ-C30 version—multivariable analyses (adjusted)

From: Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey

	Questionnaire version mäßig – ziemlich				Higher health burden (QoL < 50) mäßig – ziemlich				Lower health burden (QoL ≥ 50) mäßig – ziemlich				Paper− based assessment mäßig – ziemlich				Computer− based assessment mäßig – ziemlich
	Delta	95% CI		p	Delta	95% CI		p	Delta	95% CI		p	Delta	95% CI		p	Delta	95% CI		p
Cancer patients between− group comparisons^a
n	450				144				306				236				214
PF	− 1.0	− 5.5	3.5	0.663	− 2.1	− 9.5	5.3	0.585	0.1	− 5.0	5.1	0.978	2.3	− 3.7	8.3	0.450	− 4.3	− 10.5	2.0	0.179
RF	− 1.3	− 7.4	4.8	0685	0.7	− 9.4	10.8	0.894	− 3.2	− 10.1	3.7	0.363	− 1.8	− 10.0	6.3	0.660	− 0.7	− 9.2	7.9	0.687
EF	− 7.5	− 12.1	− 2.8	0.002	− 8.8	− 16.4	− 1.1	0.024	− 6.2	− 11.4	− 0.9	0.022	− 6.6	− 12.8	− 0.4	0.038	− 8.4	− 14.8	− 1.9	0.011
CF	− 5.2	− 9.9	− 0.6	0.028	− 6.3	− 14.0	1.4	0.107	− 4.1	− 9.4	1.1	0.123	− 3.1	− 9.4	3.1	0.324	− 7.3	− 13.8	− 0.8	0.028
SF	− 4.9	− 10.7	0.9	0.095	− 7.4	− 16.9	2.2	0.130	− 2.5	− 9.0	4.1	0.459	− 5.5	− 13.2	2.3	0.167	− 4.4	− 12.5	3.7	0.287
FA	4.8	− 0.3	9.9	0.063	7.4	− 1.0	15.7	0.085	2.3	− 3.5	8.0	0.435	4.6	− 2.2	11.4	0.182	5.0	− 2.1	12.1	0.165
NV	1.1	− 2.8	5.1	0.571	2.5	− 4.0	9.0	0.444	− 0.3	− 4.7	4.2	0.908	0.1	− 5.1	5.4	0.959	2.1	− 3.4	7.6	0.446
PA	2.6	− 3.1	8.3	0.374	3.9	− 5.5	13.4	0.414	1.2	− 5.2	7.7	0.706	2.8	− 4.9	10.4	0.477	2.4	− 5.6	10.4	0.555
DY	1.2	− 4.9	7.3	0.700	− 0.6	− 10.7	9.4	0.901	3.0	− 3.9	10.0	0.390	− 3.2	− 11.4	5.0	0.446	5.6	− 3.0	14.1	0.200
SL	9.9	3.3	16.5	0.004	10.4	− 0.6	21.3	0.064	9.4	1.9	17.0	0.014	8.0	− 0.8	16.9	0.076	11.7	2.5	21.0	0.013
AP	7.4	1.0	13.7	0.024	13.1	2.5	23.7	0.015	1.6	− 5.6	8.8	0.664	5.9	− 2.7	14.5	0.177	8.8	− 0.1	17.7	0.053
CO	2.1	− 3.5	7.8	0.463	3.8	− 5.6	13.1	0.429	0.5	− 5.9	6.8	0.888	0.2	− 7.4	7.7	0.967	4.1	− 3.8	11.9	0.312
DI	5.3	− 0.3	10.6	0.062	12.4	3.5	21.4	0.007	− 2.1	− 8.3	4.0	0.491	3.6	− 3.7	10.8	0.332	6.7	− 0.8	14.3	0.082
FI	5.0	− 0.7	10.7	0.086	12.4	3.0	21.9	0.010	− 2.4	− 8.9	4.0	0.458	3.5	− 4.2	11.1	0.374	6.5	− 1.4	14.5	0.108
Summary	− 4.5	− 7.8	− 1.3	0.006	− 6.8	− 12.2	− 1.4	0.013	− 2.3	− 5.9	1.4	0.226	− 3.1	− 7.5	1.2	0.161	− 5.9	− 10.5	− 1.4	0.010
Cancer patients within—group comparisons^b
n	229				57				172				119				110
PF	− 4.5	− 6.4	− 2.6	< 0.001	− 5.4	− 8.7	− 2.2	0.001	− 3.6	− 5.4	− 1.7	< 0.001	− 4.0	− 6.4	− 1.6	0.001	− 5.0	− 7.5	− 2.4	< 0.001
RF	− 4.8	− 8.1	− 1.4	0.005	− 6.3	− 12.1	− 0.5	0.033	− 3.2	− 6.6	0.1	0.056	− 4.5	− 8.8	− 0.3	0.038	− 5.0	− 9.5	− 0.5	0.031
EF	− 2.5	− 4.8	− 0.3	0.026	− 2.5	− 6.4	1.4	0.209	− 2.6	− 4.8	− 0.4	0.023	− 2.6	− 5.4	0.3	0.077	− 2.5	− 5.5	0.6	0.109
CF	− 1.5	− 3.6	0.7	0.190	− 1.9	− 5.6	1.9	0.335	− 1.0	− 3.2	1.1	0.344	− 0.9	− 3.7	1.9	0.548	− 2.1	− 5.0	0.9	0.175
SF	− 4.1	− 7.3	− 0.9	0.012	− 7.9	− 13.5	− 2.3	0.006	− 0.4	− 3.6	2.8	0.825	− 4.4	− 8.5	− 0.2	0.038	− 3.9	− 8.3	0.5	0.081
FA	3.4	0.9	6.0	0.009	6.1	1.6	10.6	0.008	0.8	− 1.8	3.4	0.537	3.1	− 0.2	6.4	0.064	3.8	0.3	7.3	0.036
NV	0.4	− 1.9	2.7	0.708	1.9	− 2.1	5.9	0.356	− 1.0	− 3.3	1.3	0.392	1.0	− 1.9	4.0	0.486	− 0.2	− 3.3	3.0	0.915
PA	3.3	0.5	6.2	0.021	5.3	0.4	10.2	0.035	1.4	− 1.4	4.2	0.335	1.6	− 2.0	5.3	0.379	5.1	1.2	8.9	0.010
DY	4.0	1.0	7.0	0.010	7.4	2.1	12.7	0.006	0.6	− 2.4	3.7	0.691	1.0	− 2.9	4.9	0.614	7.0	2.8	11.2	0.001
SL	4.7	1.0	8.5	0.014	5.2	− 1.3	11.8	0.118	4.3	0.5	8.1	0.026	3.6	− 1.2	8.5	0.143	5.9	0.8	11.0	0.025
AP	4.9	1.3	8.5	0.008	8.2	1.9	14.6	0.011	1.5	− 2.1	5.2	0.403	2.3	− 2.4	7.0	0.329	7.5	2.5	12.4	0.003
CO	1.2	− 1.6	4.1	0.403	2.0	− 2.9	7.0	0.416	0.4	− 2.5	3.2	0.794	− 0.8	− 4.4	2.9	0.674	3.2	− 0.7	7.1	0.105
DI	1.2	− 1.9	4.3	0.444	2.9	− 2.4	8.2	0.283	− 0.5	− 3.6	2.5	0.736	2.6	− 1.4	6.5	0.197	− 0.2	− 4.4	4.0	0.924
FI	3.2	0.0	6.3	0.049	5.3	− 0.2	10.8	0.058	1.0	− 2.1	4.2	0.517	2.2	− 1.9	6.2	0.290	4.2	− 0.1	8.5	0.058
Summary	− 3.1	− 4.3	− 1.9	< 0.001	− 4.8	− 6.9	− 2.8	< 0.001	− 1.4	− 2.6	− 0.2	0.022	− 2.4	− 3.9	− 0.8	0.003	− 3.9	− 5.5	− 2.3	< 0.001
German population between—group comparisons^c
n	2033				370				1663
PF	− 3.8	− 5.9	− 1.8	< 0.001	− 5.6	− 9.3	− 2.0	0.003	− 2.1	− 3.8	− 0.3	0.020
RF	− 4.4	− 6.9	− 1.9	0.001	− 6.8	− 11.3	− 2.3	0.003	− 2.1	− 4.2	0.1	0.056
EF	− 2.0	− 4.4	0.3	0.091	− 2.5	− 6.8	1.7	0.247	− 1.5	− 3.5	0.5	0.130
CF	− 2.7	− 4.8	− 0.7	0.010	− 4.4	− 8.1	− 0.6	0.024	− 1.1	− 2.9	0.7	0.218
SF	− 3.9	− 6.1	− 1.7	0.001	− 6.3	− 10.3	− 2.3	0.002	− 1.5	− 3.4	0.4	0.117
FA	4.3	1.8	6.8	0.001	6.3	1.7	10.8	0.007	2.4	0.3	4.5	0.027
NV	1.4	− 0.2	3.0	0.089	2.2	− 0.8	5.1	0.146	0.6	− 0.8	2.0	0.367
PA	3.6	0.7	6.4	0.015	4.5	− 0.7	9.7	0.093	2.7	0.2	5.1	0.033
DY	3.8	1.1	6.6	0.007	6.0	1.0	11.0	0.019	1.7	− 0.7	4.0	0.162
SL	3.0	− 0.3	6.3	0.074	5.2	− 0.8	11.2	0.091	0.9	− 2.0	3.7	0.546
AP	3.5	1.3	5.6	0.002	5.9	2.0	9.9	0.003	1.0	− 0.9	2.8	0.310
CO	1.5	− 0.7	3.8	0.187	1.9	− 2.2	6.0	0.367	1.2	− 0.8	3.1	0.235
DI	1.5	− 0.8	3.8	0.187	0.9	− 3.3	5.0	0.676	2.2	0.2	4.2	0.027
FI	3.3	0.9	5.7	0.007	5.6	1.3	9.9	0.011	1.0	− 1.1	3.0	0.347
Summary	− 3.1	− 4.6	− 1.5	< 0.001	− 4.5	− 7.3	− 1.7	0.002	− 1.6	− 2.9	− 0.3	0.016

The EORTC QLQ-C30 was presented in two versions. The conventional version used mäßig and the optimized version used ziemlich as response option 3 of the 4-point Likert scale
PF physical functioning, RF role functioning, EF emotional functioning, CF cognitive functioning, SF social functioning, FA fatigue, NV nausea and vomiting, PA pain, DY dyspnea, SL insomnia, AP appetite loss, CO constipation, DI diarrhea, FI financial difficulties, delta mean difference
^aFor between-subject comparisons, responses to the current and updated questionnaire versions of the first assessment were compared using ANCOVAs adjusted for sex, age, mode of administration (MOA) and health burden
^bFor within-subject comparisons, mixed linear models were used: subject as random factor, questionnaire version as repeated factor and the following set of fixed factors: questionnaire version, mode of administration (MOA), order of questionnaire versions, sex, age, and health burden
^cFor between-subject comparisons, responses to the current and updated questionnaire versions were compared using ANCOVAs adjusted for sex, age, and health burden

Back to article page

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com