Validation of the Thai version of the family reported outcome measure (FROM-16)© to assess the impact of disease on the partner or family members of patients with cancer

Pattariya Chantarasap, Nutjaree Pratheepawanit Johns, Srivieng Pairojkul, Aumkhae Sookprasert, Kosin Wirasorn, Areewan Cheawchanwattana, Sam Salek, Suphat Subongkot, Pattariya Chantarasap, Nutjaree Pratheepawanit Johns, Srivieng Pairojkul, Aumkhae Sookprasert, Kosin Wirasorn, Areewan Cheawchanwattana, Sam Salek, Suphat Subongkot

Abstract

Background: Cancer not only impairs a patient's physical and psychosocial functional behaviour, but also contributes to negative impact on family members' health related quality of life. Currently, there is an absence of a relevant tool in Thai with which to measure such impact. The aim of this study was to translate and validate the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) in Thai cancer patients' family members.

Methods: Thai version of FROM-16 was generated by interactive forward-backward translation process following standard guidelines. This was tested for psychometric properties including reliability and validity, namely content validity, concurrent validity, known group validity, internal consistency, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Construct validity was examined by comparing the Thai FROM-16 version with the WHOQOL-BREF-THAI.

Results: The internal consistency reliability was strong (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). A Negative moderate correlation between the Thai FROM-16 and WHOQOL-BREF-THAI was observed (r = - 0.4545, p < 0.00), and known group validity was proved by a statistically significant higher score in family members with high burden of care and insufficient income. The factor analysis supported both 3-factor and 2-factor loading model with slight difference when compared with the original version.

Conclusions: The Thai FROM-16 showed good reliability and validity in Thai family members of patients with cancer. A slight difference in factor analysis results compared to the original version could be due to cross-culture application.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee in human research, record number 4.2.05:43/2015. Written informed consent was obtained from both family members and patients prior to data collection.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Wood-Dauphinee S. Assessing quality of life in clinical research: from where have we come and where are we going? J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):355–363. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00179-6.
    1. Golics CJ, Basra MK, Finlay AY, Salek S. The impact of disease on family members: a critical aspect of medical care. J R Soc Med. 2013;106(10):399–407. doi: 10.1177/0141076812472616.
    1. Covinsky KE, Goldman L, Cook EF, Oye R, Desbiens N, Reding D, et al. The impact of serious illness on patients' families. SUPPORT investigators. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatment. JAMA. 1994;272(23):1839–1844. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520230049037.
    1. Friethriksdottir N, Saevarsdottir T, Halfdanardottir SI, Jonsdottir A, Magnusdottir H, Olafsdottir KL, et al. Family members of cancer patients: needs, quality of life and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 2011;50(2):252–258. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2010.529821.
    1. Mahrer-Imhof R, Jaggi S, Bonomo A, Hediger H, Eggenschwiler P, Kramer G, et al. Quality of life in adult patients with epilepsy and their family members. Seizure. 2013;22(2):128–135. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2012.11.012.
    1. Edwards B, Clarke V. The psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis on families: the influence of family functioning and patients' illness characteristics on depression and anxiety. Psycho-Oncology. 2004;13(8):562–576. doi: 10.1002/pon.773.
    1. Varnum ME, Grossmann I, Kitayama S, Nisbett RE. The origin of cultural differences in cognition: evidence for the social orientation hypothesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2010;19(1):9–13. doi: 10.1177/0963721409359301.
    1. Meecharoen W, Northouse LL, Sirapo-ngam Y, Monkong S. Family caregivers for Cancer patients in Thailand. SAGE Open. 2013;3(3):2158244013500280. doi: 10.1177/2158244013500280.
    1. Golics CJ, Basra MK, Finlay AY, Salek S. The development and validation of the family reported outcome measure (FROM-16)(c) to assess the impact of disease on the partner or family member. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):317–326. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0457-y.
    1. Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, Brunning RD, Borowitz MJ, Porwit A, Harris NL, Le Beau MM, Hellström-Lindberg E, Tefferi A, Bloomfield CD. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood. 2009;114(5):937–951. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-209262.
    1. Koller M, Aaronson NK, Blazeby J, Bottomley A, Dewolf L, Fayers P, et al. Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(12):1810–1820. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.05.029.
    1. Mahatnirunkul S, Tuntipivatanakul W, Pumpisanchai W, et al. Comparison of the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-BREF (26 items) J Ment Health Thai. 1998;5:4–15.
    1. Lim JW, Zebrack B. Caring for family members with chronic physical illness: a critical review of caregiver literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:50. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-50.
    1. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69–71.
    1. Schumacker RE, Lomax, R.G. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Second ed. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
    1. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116.
    1. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
    1. Hair JFTR, Anderson RE, Black W. Multivariate data analysis. fifth ed. London: Prentice-Hall; 1998.
    1. Ramada-Rodilla JM, Serra-Pujadas C, Delclos-Clanchet GL. Cross-cultural adaptation and health questionnaires validation: revision and methodological recommendations. Salud publica de Mexico. 2013;55(1):57–66. doi: 10.1590/S0036-36342013000100009.
    1. Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee SI. Psychometric properties of the Korean short form-36 health survey version 2 for assessing the general population. Asian Nurs Res. 2013;7(2):61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2013.03.001.
    1. Watcharee Leurmarnkul PM. Properties testing of the retranslated SF-36 (Thai version) Thai J Pharm Sci. 2005;29(1–2):69–88.
    1. Mahendran R, Lim HA, Chua J, Peh CX, Lim SE, Kua EH. The caregiver quality of life index-Cancer (CQOLC) in Singapore: a new preliminary factor structure for caregivers of ambulatory patients with cancer. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(2):399–404. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0768-7.
    1. Papadopoulos A, Vrettos I, Kamposioras K, Charitos D, Giannopoulos G, Pectasides D, et al. Comparing health-related quality of life (HRQL) of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with family members in a tertiary hospital. J Clin Oncol. 2009 27:15S, e20535-e20535

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner