Korean Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of Korean Version EORTC QLQ-BRECON23
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Measures
2.5. Data Analysis
2.6. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.2. Construct Validity: Item Analysis
3.3. Construct Validity: CFA, Known-Group Validity
3.4. Concurrent Validity
3.5. Reliability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Korean Breast Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. Available online: http://www.kbcs.or.kr/journal/file/2015_Breast_Cancer_Factsand_Figures_updated.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- Yi, M.; Joung, W.J.; Park, E.Y.; Kwon, E.J.; Kim, H.; Seo, J.Y. Decision making experience on breast reconstruction for women with breast cancer. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 2016, 46, 894–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Qin, Q.; Tan, Q.; Lian, B.; Mo, Q.; Huang, Z.; Wei, C. Postoperative outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective study. Medicine 2018, 97, e9766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sousa, H.; Castro, S.; Abreu, J.; Pereira, M.G. A systematic review of factors affecting quality of life after postmastectomy breast reconstruction in women with breast cancer. Psycho-oncology 2019, 28, 2107–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dauplat, J.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Rouanet, P.; Delay, E.; Clough, K.; Verhaeghe, J.; Raoust, I.; Houvenaeghel, G.; Lemasurier, P.; Thivat, E.; et al. Quality of life after mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Br. J. Surg. 2017, 104, 1197–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flitcroft, K.; Brennan, M.; Spillane, A. Women’s expectations of breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer: A systematic review. Support. Care Cancer 2017, 25, 2631–2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, M.L.; Idris, D.B.; Teo, L.W.; Loh, S.Y.; Seow, G.C.; Chia, Y.Y.; Tin, A.S. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia-Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2014, 1, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winters, Z.; Balta, V.; Thomson, H.; Brandberg, Y.; Oberguggenberger, A.; Sinove, Y.; Unukovych, D.; Nava, M.; Sandelin, K.; Johansson, H.; et al. Phase III development of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire module for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 101, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winters, Z.; Afzal, M.; Rutherford, C.; Holzner, B.; Rumpold, G.; da Costa Vieira, R.A.; Hartup, S.; Flitcroft, K.; Bjelic-Radisic, V.; Oberguggenburger, A.; et al. International validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-BRECON23 quality-of-life questionnaire for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Br. J. Surg. 2018, 105, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentler, P.M.; Chou, C.-P. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1987, 16, 78–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenz, A.S.; Gómez Soler, I.; Dell’Aquilla, J.; Uribe, P.M. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessments for use in counseling research. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2017, 50, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, N.W.; Fayers, P.; Aaronson, N.K.; Bottomley, A.; de Graeff, A.; Groenvold, M.; Gundy, C.; Koller, M.; Petersen, M.A.; Sprangers, M.A.; et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values Manual; EORTC: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory 3E; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Sawilowsky, S.S. New effect size rules of thumb. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2009, 8, 597–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.-W.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, T.-G.; Kim, Y.-H.; Chung, K.J. Breast reconstruction statistics in Korea from the big data hub of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment service. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2018, 45, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Matros, E.; Albornoz, C.R.; Razdan, S.N.; Mehrara, B.J.; Macadam, S.A.; Ro, T.; McCarthy, C.M.; Disa, J.J.; Cordeiro, P.G.; Pusic, A.L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 135, 937–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Razdan, S.N.; Cordeiro, P.G.; Albornoz, C.R.; Ro, T.; Cohen, W.A.; Mehrara, B.J.; McCarthy, C.M.; Disa, J.J.; Pusic, A.L.; Matros, E. Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast reconstruction options in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy using the BREAST-Q. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 137, 510e–517e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Characteristics | Category | n (%) or Mean (±SD) |
---|---|---|
Age, years | Range: 33–81 | 52.41 (±9.01) |
Religion | Yes | 71 (48) |
No | 77 (52) | |
Education level | Primary school | 10 (6.8) |
Middle school | 13 (8.8) | |
High school | 56 (37.8) | |
Above college | 69 (46.6) | |
Marital status | Single | 30 (20.3) |
Married | 118 (79.7) | |
Perceived economical | Unstable | 31 (20.9) |
status | Fair | 47 (31.7) |
Stable | 70 (47.3) | |
Occupation | Employed | 48 (32.4) |
Unemployed | 100 (67.6) | |
Perceived health status | Range: 1–4 | 3.09 (±0.88) |
Presence of Comorbidity a | Hypertension | 25 (16.9) |
Diabetes Mellitus | 12 (8.1) | |
Thyroid disease | 9 (6.1) | |
Kidney disease | 2 (1.4) | |
Gastrointestinal diseases | 3 (2.0) | |
Cancer | 2 (1.4) | |
Others | 7 (7.4) | |
ECOG PS b | 0 | 28 (18.9) |
1 | 97 (65.5) | |
2 | 22 (14.9) | |
3 | 1 (0.7) |
Clinical Characteristics | Categories | n (%) |
---|---|---|
Years after surgery | ≤1 year | 111 (75,0) |
>1 year | 37 (25.0) | |
Type of breast reconstruction | Implant alone | 11 (7.4) |
Implant and ADM a | 122 (82.4) | |
LD b flap and implant | 1 (0.7) | |
Autologous LD flap | 2 (1.4) | |
TRAM c pedicle/free flap | 3 (2.0) | |
Delayed | 9 (6.1) | |
Type of axillary dissection | SLNB d | 101 (68.2) |
Level 1 (non-SLNB sampling) | 4 (2.7) | |
Levels 2~3 (axillary lymph node dissection) | 43 (29.1) | |
Nipple preservation | Yes | 100 (67.6) |
No | 48 (32.4) | |
Nipple reconstruction | Yes | 2 (4.2) |
No | 46 (95.8) | |
Stage | Stage 0 | 16 (10.8) |
Stage Ⅰ | 67 (45.3) | |
Stage Ⅱ | 50 (33.8) | |
Stage Ⅲ | 14 (9.5) | |
Stage Ⅳ | 1 (0.7) | |
Tumor type | DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) | 21 (14.2) |
Invasive | 1 (0.7) | |
DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and invasive | 114 (77.0) | |
Phyllodes tumor | 1 (0.7) | |
Others | 11 (7.4) | |
Lymph node invasion | Negative | 105 (70.9) |
Positive | 43 (29.1) | |
Postoperative treatment | Radiotherapy (RTx) | 2 (1.4) |
Chemotherapy (CTx) | 70 (47.3) | |
Hormone therapy (Hormone Tx) | 25 (16.9) | |
No treatment | 32 (21.6) | |
RTx & CTx | 9 (6.1) | |
RTx & Hormone Tx | 1 (0.7) | |
CTx & Hormone Tx | 4 (2.7) | |
RTx & CTx & Hormone Tx | 5 (3.4) | |
Radiotherapy | Chest wall | 15 (88.2) |
Chest wall & Axilla | 2 (11.8) |
Scales | Subscale | Items (Range: 1–4) | Mean ± SD | Item–Total Correlations | Kurtosis | If Deleted Item Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Symptom scales | TS | Q 54 | 2.04 ± 0.92 | 0.396 | −0.559 | 0.844 |
Q 55 | 1.59 ± 0.86 | 0.365 | 0.805 | 0.841 | ||
DS | Q 71 | 1.71 ± 0.19 | 0.264 | 31.223 | 0.825 | |
Q 72 | 1.71 ± 0.22 | 0.239 | 76.631 | 0.824 | ||
Q 73 | 2.57 ± 0.26 | 0.221 | 30.965 | 0.826 | ||
NL | Q 75 | 2.76 ± 0.66 | 0.221 | 2.241 | 0.826 | |
Function scales | SX | Q 56 * | 3.25 ± 0.89 | 0.365 | −0.382 | 0.819 |
Q 57 * | 3.49 ± 0.80 | 0.335 | 0.573 | 0.821 | ||
Q 58 * | 3.37 ± 0.84 | 0.391 | −0.282 | 0.818 | ||
Q 59 * | 3.41 ± 0.85 | 0.477 | 0.567 | 0.813 | ||
SBC | Q 60 | 2.43 ± 0.98 | 0.516 | −0.877 | 0.810 | |
Q 61 | 2.31 ± 0.97 | 0.621 | −0.583 | 0.804 | ||
Q 62 | 2.33 ± 1.02 | 0.626 | −1.063 | 0.803 | ||
Q 63 | 2.06 ± 0.94 | 0.621 | −0.569 | 0.804 | ||
Q 64 | 2.38 ± 0.95 | 0.601 | −0.749 | 0.805 | ||
Q 65 | 2.18 ± 0.97 | 0.542 | −0.763 | 0.809 | ||
SNC | Q 66 | 2.67 ± 0.99 | 0.377 | −0.066 | 0.819 | |
Q 67 | 2.03 ± 0.94 | 0.448 | 0.681 | 0.814 | ||
SSU | Q 68 | 1.84 ± 0.85 | 0.420 | 0.068 | 0.816 | |
Q 69 | 2.56 ± 0.87 | 0.633 | −0.764 | 0.804 | ||
Q 70 | 2.86 ± 0.91 | 0.395 | −0.904 | 0.819 | ||
SDS | Q 74 | 1.43 ± 0.16 | 0.225 | 68.599 | 0.825 | |
NP | Q 76 | 3.13 ± 0.77 | 0.381 | 0.200 | 0.817 |
Clinical Characteristics | Categories | SDS (Q74) | NL (Q75) | NP (Q76) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
Stage | Stage 0–II | 1.43 ± 0.16 | 2.79 ± 0.60 | 3.11 ± 0.79 |
Stage III–IV | 1.41 ± 0.15 | 2.44 ± 0.94 | 3.25 ± 0.63 | |
ES (d) | 0.13 | 0.46 | 0.18 | |
95% CI | −0.08–0.08 | 0.02–0.69 | −0.49–0.23 | |
Type of breast reconstruction | Implant-based | 1.40 ± 0.80 | 2.78 ± 0.64 | 3.11 ± 0.78 |
Flap-based | 1.52 ± 0.83 | 2.80 ± 0.09 | 3.18 ± 0.74 | |
ES (d) | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.10 | |
95% CI | −0.20–0.06 | −0.54–0.51 | −0.73–0.58 | |
Nipple preservation | Yes | 1.43 ± 0.18 | 2.76 ± 0.02 | 3.16 ± 0.90 |
No | 1.41 ± 0.08 | 2.75 ± 1.16 | 3.03 ± 0.37 | |
ES (d) | 0.18 | 0.01 | 0.19 | |
95% CI | −0.02–0.07 | −0.07–0.34 | −0.07–0.34 |
r-Values | BRECON23 Functions | BRECON23 Symptoms |
---|---|---|
BR23 Functions | 0.250 (p = 0.013) | −0.271 (p = 0.001) |
BR23 Symptoms | −0.298 (p < 0.001) | 0.494 (p <0.001) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bok, S.-K.; Song, Y.; Lim, A.; Choi, H.; Shin, H.; Jin, S. Korean Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of Korean Version EORTC QLQ-BRECON23. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249163
Bok S-K, Song Y, Lim A, Choi H, Shin H, Jin S. Korean Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of Korean Version EORTC QLQ-BRECON23. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(24):9163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249163
Chicago/Turabian StyleBok, Soo-Kyung, Youngshin Song, Ancho Lim, Hyunsuk Choi, Hyunkyung Shin, and Sohyun Jin. 2020. "Korean Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of Korean Version EORTC QLQ-BRECON23" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 24: 9163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249163