Assessment of breast cancer disability: agreement between expert assessment and patient reports

References

• Hayes SC, Johansson K, Stout NL, et al. Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer. Incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care. Cancer. 2012;118:2237–2249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kärki A, Simonen R, Mälkiä E, et al. Impairments, activity limitations and participation restriction 6 and 12 months after breast cancer operation. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:180–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelblatt J, Armetta C, Yabroff KR, et al. Descriptive review of the literature on breast cancer outcomes: 1990 through 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;33:8–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayes SC, Rye S, Battistutta D, et al. Upper-body morbidity following breast cancer treatment is common, may persist longer-term and adversely influences quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montazeri A. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: a bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008;27:32–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ness KK, Wall MM, Oakes JM, et al. Physical performance limitations and participation restrictions among cancer survivors: a population-based study. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16:197–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giardini A, Pisoni C, Giorgi I, et al. ICF, quality of life, and depression in breast cancer: perceived disability in disease-free women 6 months after mastectomy. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:2453–2460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Whoqol User Manual: Programme on Mental Health. World Health Organization; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Registration. 2009;74:65132–65133.
   Google Scholar
• Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Wu AW. Outcome definition and measurement. Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research, A user's guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). 2013;Chapter 6:71–92.
   Google Scholar
• Kuspinar A, Mayo NE. Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:71–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials. The CONSORT PRO extension patient reported outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA. 2013;309:814–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinten C, Maringwa J, Gotay CC, et al. Patient self-reports of symptoms and clinician ratings as predictors of overall cancer survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1851–1858.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basch E, Bennett A, Pietanza MC. Use of patient-reported outcomes to improve the predictive accuracy of clinician-reported adverse events. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1808–1810.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1624–1632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M, et al. How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the quality-of-life questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3485–3490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Confederation for Physical Therapy. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. 2013. Available from: www.wcpt.org/icf.
   Google Scholar
• Stucki G International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a promising framework and classification for rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:733–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickenbach J, Cieza A, Rauch A, et al. ICF core sets: manual for clinical practice for the ICF research branch, in cooperation with the WHO collaborating centre for the family of international classifications in Germany (DIMDI). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Publishing; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Gilchrist LS, Galantino M, Wampler M, et al. A framework for assessment in oncology rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2009;89:286–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brach M, Cieza A, Stucki G, et al. ICF core sets for breast cancer. J Rehabil Med. 2004;121–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo NE, Moriello C, Asano M, et al. The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices captures contructs beyond symptoms and function. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:621–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al. Developing the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:815–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letellier ME, Dawes D, Mayo N Content verification of the EORTC QLQ-C30/EORTC QLQ-BR23 with the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:757–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:205–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:212–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J, Gandek B Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903–912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Ware Jr, Lu R, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprangers MAG, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2756–2768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F. WHODAS II: disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual frame. In: Stone JH, Blouin M, editors. International encyclopedia of rehabilitation. 2011; pp.1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Pösl M, Cieza A, Stucki G. Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1521–1531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The WHOQOL group. Measuring quality of life – The World Health Organization quality of life instruments (the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-Bref). 1997, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nascimento de Carvalho F, Bergmann A, Koifman RJ. Functionality in women with breast cancer: the use of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26:721–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Cancer Society. Canadian Cancer Statistics. Special topic: Skin cancer. Canadian Cancer Society, Statistics Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Provincial/Territorial Cancer Registries 2014. Canadian Cancer Society's Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenzveig A, Kuspinar A, Daskalopoulou SS, et al. Toward patient-centered care: a systematic review of how to ask questions that matter to patients. Medicine. 2014;93:e120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donner A. Sample size requirements for the comparison of two or more coefficients of inter-observer agreement. Stat Med. 1998;17:1157–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabakuyo TS, Guillemin F, Conroy T, et al. Response shift effects on measuring post-operative quality of life among breast cancer patients: a multicenter cohort study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser MR, Oort FJ, Lanschot JJ, et al. The role of recalibration response shift in explaining bodily pain in cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery: an empirical investigation of the Sprangers and Schwartz model. Psycho Oncol. 2013;22:515–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaessel A, Kirchberger I, Stucki G, et al. Does the comprehensive International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for breast cancer capture the problems in functioning treated by physiotherapists in women with breast cancer? Physiotherapy. 2011;97:33–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar