Cargando…

Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors’ fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mosher, Catherine E., Secinti, Ekin, Johns, Shelley A., Kroenke, Kurt, Rogers, Laura Q.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308850/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35870034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00488-1
_version_ 1784753036864782336
author Mosher, Catherine E.
Secinti, Ekin
Johns, Shelley A.
Kroenke, Kurt
Rogers, Laura Q.
author_facet Mosher, Catherine E.
Secinti, Ekin
Johns, Shelley A.
Kroenke, Kurt
Rogers, Laura Q.
author_sort Mosher, Catherine E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors’ fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue measures are preferable in clinical practice but have limited evidence supporting their use with cancer survivors. We examined the psychometric properties of four Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) measures, including the new FSI-3, in cancer survivors. Examined properties included responsiveness to change and minimally important differences (MIDs). METHODS: We analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials with post-treatment cancer survivors (N = 328). Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing standardized response means for survivors who reported their fatigue as being better, the same, or worse at 2–3 months. Responsiveness to intervention was assessed via effect sizes, and MIDs were estimated by using several methods. We also computed area under the curve (AUC) values to assess FSI measures’ discriminative accuracy compared to an established cut-point. RESULTS: All FSI measures differentiated survivors who reported improvement at 2–3 months from those with stable fatigue, but did not uniformly differentiate worsening fatigue from stable fatigue. Measures showed similar levels of responsiveness to intervention, and MIDs ranged from 0.29 to 2.20 across FSI measures. AUC analyses supported the measures’ ability to detect significant fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Four FSI scales show similar responsiveness to change, and estimated MIDs can inform assessment of meaningful change in fatigue. The FSI-3 shows promise as an ultra-brief fatigue measure for survivors. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00488-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9308850
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93088502022-07-25 Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors Mosher, Catherine E. Secinti, Ekin Johns, Shelley A. Kroenke, Kurt Rogers, Laura Q. J Patient Rep Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors’ fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue measures are preferable in clinical practice but have limited evidence supporting their use with cancer survivors. We examined the psychometric properties of four Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) measures, including the new FSI-3, in cancer survivors. Examined properties included responsiveness to change and minimally important differences (MIDs). METHODS: We analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials with post-treatment cancer survivors (N = 328). Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing standardized response means for survivors who reported their fatigue as being better, the same, or worse at 2–3 months. Responsiveness to intervention was assessed via effect sizes, and MIDs were estimated by using several methods. We also computed area under the curve (AUC) values to assess FSI measures’ discriminative accuracy compared to an established cut-point. RESULTS: All FSI measures differentiated survivors who reported improvement at 2–3 months from those with stable fatigue, but did not uniformly differentiate worsening fatigue from stable fatigue. Measures showed similar levels of responsiveness to intervention, and MIDs ranged from 0.29 to 2.20 across FSI measures. AUC analyses supported the measures’ ability to detect significant fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Four FSI scales show similar responsiveness to change, and estimated MIDs can inform assessment of meaningful change in fatigue. The FSI-3 shows promise as an ultra-brief fatigue measure for survivors. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00488-1. Springer International Publishing 2022-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9308850/ /pubmed/35870034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00488-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Mosher, Catherine E.
Secinti, Ekin
Johns, Shelley A.
Kroenke, Kurt
Rogers, Laura Q.
Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors
title Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors
title_full Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors
title_fullStr Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors
title_full_unstemmed Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors
title_short Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors
title_sort comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of fatigue symptom inventory (fsi) scales and the fsi-3 in trials with cancer survivors
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308850/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35870034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00488-1
work_keys_str_mv AT moshercatherinee comparativeresponsivenessandminimallyimportantdifferenceoffatiguesymptominventoryfsiscalesandthefsi3intrialswithcancersurvivors
AT secintiekin comparativeresponsivenessandminimallyimportantdifferenceoffatiguesymptominventoryfsiscalesandthefsi3intrialswithcancersurvivors
AT johnsshelleya comparativeresponsivenessandminimallyimportantdifferenceoffatiguesymptominventoryfsiscalesandthefsi3intrialswithcancersurvivors
AT kroenkekurt comparativeresponsivenessandminimallyimportantdifferenceoffatiguesymptominventoryfsiscalesandthefsi3intrialswithcancersurvivors
AT rogerslauraq comparativeresponsivenessandminimallyimportantdifferenceoffatiguesymptominventoryfsiscalesandthefsi3intrialswithcancersurvivors