![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
Shorter quality-of-life (QoL) assessments are beneficial for palliative patients as they reduce burden associated with completing personal, and at times stressful, questionnaires. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal) are two palliative QoL tools that have been validated for use in this population. The purpose of this article was to conduct a review of studies utilizing these two palliative-specific QoL instruments, their development and their relative strengths for use in advanced cancer patients. Studies detailing the development process for the QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Pal were identified. A comparison between both questionnaires in terms of development, characteristics, validation and use was conducted. The QLQ-C15-PAL was developed via structured shortening of the longer core instrument, the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), whereas the FACIT-Pal includes the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General tool plus a new 19-item palliative scale created through interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Although significant overlap exists between both tools, there is a marked difference in the aspects of QoL assessed. Scoring, organization and item format are different; however, response options and recall period are the same. Both tools cover the core items relevant to patients with advanced cancers and can be supplemented with disease-specific tools. Both QLQ-C15-PAL and FACIT-Pal allow for assessment of QoL issues specific to patients with advanced diseases. Each instrument has unique strengths and weaknesses and choice between these tools is dependent on the investigator and study needs. Future studies should directly compare these two tools and validate their use through a number of administration modes.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
This study was supported by the Michael and Karyn Goldstein Cancer Research Fund. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.