Measuring the Socioeconomic Impact of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Standardized Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments.

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS

PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2025-04-04 DOI:10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0

Phu Duy Pham, Jasper Ubels, Rachel Eckford, Michael Schlander

{"title":"Measuring the Socioeconomic Impact of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Standardized Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments.","authors":"Phu Duy Pham, Jasper Ubels, Rachel Eckford, Michael Schlander","doi":"10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A number of instruments have been developed to measure the socioeconomic impact (SEI) of cancer. A standardized comparison of the quality and content validity of these instruments is lacking. This study aimed to (1) conduct a standardized assessment of the quality of SEI instruments and (2) assess the content validity of these instruments using the conceptual framework developed by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) for SEI analysis.Method: We identified articles measuring the SEI of cancer with ad hoc and/or validated instruments from an existing database. These articles were the initial pearls in a systematic review of published articles that applied and validated these instruments using the pearl-growing search strategy in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool was utilized to provide quantitative assessment and comparison of the quality of identified instruments. To examine content validity, we allocated each instrument's items against the themes and sub-themes of the established conceptual framework for SEI analysis.Results: We identified and investigated 21 validation studies using nine original instruments. The number of articles varied significantly among the identified instruments. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument was the most frequently used, validated in ten different settings, whereas some newer instruments have not been applied yet. This variation resulted in significant differences in EMPRO overall scores among these instruments. Regarding content validity, we found that not all themes of the OECI framework were covered by the content of the instruments.Conclusion: The quality and the application of instruments measuring the SEI of cancer varied significantly. The content of the instruments seems not to cover all related themes of the applied OECI framework in this study. Further studies are warranted to confirm the quality and content validity of the instruments measuring the SEI of cancer.","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A number of instruments have been developed to measure the socioeconomic impact (SEI) of cancer. A standardized comparison of the quality and content validity of these instruments is lacking. This study aimed to (1) conduct a standardized assessment of the quality of SEI instruments and (2) assess the content validity of these instruments using the conceptual framework developed by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) for SEI analysis.

Method: We identified articles measuring the SEI of cancer with ad hoc and/or validated instruments from an existing database. These articles were the initial pearls in a systematic review of published articles that applied and validated these instruments using the pearl-growing search strategy in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool was utilized to provide quantitative assessment and comparison of the quality of identified instruments. To examine content validity, we allocated each instrument's items against the themes and sub-themes of the established conceptual framework for SEI analysis.

Results: We identified and investigated 21 validation studies using nine original instruments. The number of articles varied significantly among the identified instruments. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument was the most frequently used, validated in ten different settings, whereas some newer instruments have not been applied yet. This variation resulted in significant differences in EMPRO overall scores among these instruments. Regarding content validity, we found that not all themes of the OECI framework were covered by the content of the instruments.

Conclusion: The quality and the application of instruments measuring the SEI of cancer varied significantly. The content of the instruments seems not to cover all related themes of the applied OECI framework in this study. Further studies are warranted to confirm the quality and content validity of the instruments measuring the SEI of cancer.

查看原文本刊更多论文

测量癌症的社会经济影响：对患者报告结果（PRO）工具的系统回顾和标准化评估。

背景：已经开发了许多工具来衡量癌症的社会经济影响（SEI）。缺乏对这些文书的质量和内容效度的标准化比较。本研究旨在(1)对SEI工具的质量进行标准化评估，(2)使用欧洲癌症研究所组织（OECI）为SEI分析开发的概念框架评估这些工具的内容效度。方法：我们从一个现有的数据库中，用特别的和/或经过验证的仪器鉴定了测量癌症SEI的文章。这些文章是在PubMed、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar数据库中使用珍珠生长搜索策略应用和验证这些工具的已发表文章的系统综述中的最初的珍珠。使用评估患者报告结果测量（EMPRO）工具对确定的器械质量进行定量评估和比较。为了检验内容有效性，我们根据已建立的用于SEI分析的概念框架的主题和子主题分配了每个工具的项目。结果：我们鉴定并调查了使用9种原始仪器的21项验证研究。在确定的文书中，条目的数量差别很大。金融毒性综合评分（COST）工具是最常用的，在十种不同的环境中得到验证，而一些较新的工具尚未应用。这种差异导致了这些工具之间EMPRO总分的显著差异。关于内容效度，我们发现并非所有OECI框架的主题都被工具的内容所涵盖。结论：肿瘤SEI检测仪器的质量和应用差异较大。这些工具的内容似乎没有涵盖本研究中应用的OECI框架的所有相关主题。需要进一步的研究来证实测量癌症SEI的仪器的质量和内容有效性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

PharmacoEconomics Open Multiple-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

8 weeks

期刊介绍： PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.