General Population and Cancer Patient Norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)

Abstract

Given the number of new cancer cases diagnosed each year and the increases in survival rates, the importance of having a clinically useful health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instrument has increased. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) is one such instrument that has been used worldwide to assess HRQOL. Previously, the use of the FACT-G had been limited because of a lack of published normative data. Normative data are useful for consumers to place their results in an appropriate context by comparing their scores of individuals or group of individuals to a reference group. Here, we present normative data for the FACT-G for two reference groups: (a) a sample of the general U.S. adult population and (b) a large, heterogeneous sample of adult patients with cancer. In addition, we demonstrate various uses of the normative data.

Keywords

quality of life reference values cancer normative data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Cancer Society . (2005). Cancer facts and figures. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2005PWSecured.pdf

Cella, D. (2004). Manual of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT Scales) (Version 4.1). Evanston, IL: Center on Outcomes Research and Education (CORE) Evanston Northwestern Healthcare.

Cella, D. , Eton, D. T. , Lai, J.-S. , Peterman, A. H. , & Merkel, D. E. (2002). Combining anchor- and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Anemia and Fatigue scales. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 24, 547-561.

Cella, D. , Hahn, E. A. , & Dineen, K. (2002). Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Quality of Life Research, 11, 207-221.

Cella, D. F. , Tulsky, D. S. , Gray, G. , Sarafian, B. , Lin, E. , Bonomi, A. , et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570-579.

Cella, D. , Zagari, M. J. , Vandoros, C. , Gagnon, D. D. , Hurtz, H. J. , & Nortier, J. W. (2003). Epoetin alfa treatment results in clinically significant improvements in quality of life in anemic cancer patients when referenced to the general population. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 366-373.

Norman, G. , Sloan, J. , & Wyrwich, K. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582-592.

Overcash, J. , Extermann, M. , Parr, J. , Perry, J. , & Balducci, L. (2001). Validity and reliability of the FACT-G Scale for use in the older person with cancer. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(6), 591-596.

Sloan, J. A. , Symonds, T. , Vargas-Chanes, D. , & Fridley, B. (2003). Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Information Journal, 37, 23-31.

10.

Surveillance, Epidemiology , and End Results (SEER) Program . (2004, April) SEER* Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 9 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2003 Sub (1973-2001). Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch.

11.

Ware, J. E. , Snow, K. K. , & Kosinski, M. (2000). SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric.

12.

Webster, K. , Cella, D. , & Yost, K. (2003). The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: Properties, applications, and interpretation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 79.

13.

Winstead-Fry, P. , & Schultz, A. (1997). Psychometric assessment of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General(FACT-G)Scale in a rural sample. Cancer, 79(12), 2446-2452.

14.

Yost, K. , & Eton, D. T. (2005). Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: The FACIT experience. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28(2), 172-191.