Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: A systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity

• Published in: Urologic oncology Vol. 33; no. 2; pp. 69.e19 - 69.e28
• Main Authors: Hamoen, Esther H.J., M.D, De Rooij, Maarten, M.D, Witjes, J. Alfred, M.D., Ph.D, Barentsz, Jelle O., M.D., Ph.D, Rovers, Maroeska M., Ph.D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2015
• Subjects: Characteristics; Health-related quality of life; Humans; Instrument; Male; Prostatic neoplasma; Prostatic Neoplasms - physiopathology; Prostatic Neoplasms - psychology; Psychometrics - methods; Psychometrics - standards; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Urology; Instrument; Prostatic neoplasma; Health-related quality of life; Characteristics
• ISSN: 1078-1439; 1873-2496
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.005

Abstract Objectives To identify and study the psychometric properties of the most used health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments in men with prostate cancer. Methods We performed a literature search using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all studies on prostate cancer using a HRQoL instrument. The most often used HRQoL instruments were investigated in detail by 2 independent reviewers. Data were extracted regarding the characteristics and psychometric values of the instruments, i.e., content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability. Good psychometric outcomes indicate a high methodological quality of the instrument. Results Our systematic search revealed 13,812 potential relevant articles, of which 2,258 appeared relevant after screening the titles and reading the abstracts. We studied the psychometric properties of the 20 most often used HRQoL instruments, the first 3 of which were the Expanded Prostate Index Composite, University of California—Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Content validity, internal consistency (α>0.70), criterion validity, construct validity, and reproducibility were good in 60%, 90%, 10%, 35%, and 65% of the 20 instruments, respectively. Responsiveness was not reported for 12 of 20 instruments (60%). Floor and ceiling effects and the interpretability of the questionnaires were only reported in 3 (15%) and 6 (30%) instruments. Conclusions Considering the psychometric properties, we advise to use the SF-12 as a generic instrument, the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-SF or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General as cancer-specific HRQoL instruments, and the University of California—Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, the QUFW94, or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate as prostate cancer–specific instruments.