Comparisons of the QLICP-HN and FACT-H&N instruments for measuring quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer

TL;DR

This study compares two quality-of-life tools for head and neck cancer patients in China, showing they provide different results and cannot be used interchangeably.

Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on the differences between two widely used QoL instruments in head and neck cancer patients.

Findings

Correlations between the QLICP-HN and FACT-H&N ranged from weak to strong across different domains.

QLICP-HN showed higher internal consistency but lower validity compared to FACT-H&N.

The two tools cannot be substituted for each other due to substantial differences in their outcomes.

Abstract

Two head and neck cancer quality-of-life(QoL) measurement tools, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N) and the Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Head and Neck Cancer (QLICP-HN), are widely used in China, but several researchers tend to be confused about which QoL measurement tool to choose before conducting QoL measurements. This investigation aimed to employ data procured from patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer to conduct a comparative analysis of these two assessment tools.

Questionnaire outcomes were scrutinized at the subscale level by utilizing scale measurement analytics, correlation evaluation, validation examination, and association analyses.

Correlations between the two QoL instruments: the QLICP-HN and the FACT-H&N, fluctuated from r = 0.30 (indicating weak agreement) within the social/family domain to r = 0.80 (indicating robust agreement) within the psychological domain. Intermediate r values were associated with the remaining domains. Examination of typical correlations between the two subscales unveiled a moderate overall concurrence between the two tools (first typical correlation coefficient r = 0.89, although the overall redundancy remained at less than 57%). In the overall measurement performance, each of the two QoL tools exhibited particular strengths. However, the QLICP-HN showcased higher total scale internal consistency coefficients and a more extensive range of subscale internal consistency coefficients than the FACT-H&N scales, albeit it exhibited inferior discriminant and convergent validity.

This empirical investigation highlights that, despite some overlap in the information provided by the two QoL instruments, substantial differences persist, thereby negating the possibility of one tool substituting for the other. Consequently, outcomes derived from these two QoL measures cannot be directly juxtaposed.