A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)

BACKGROUND: Although the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General questionnaire (FACT-G) has been validated few studies have explored the factor structure of the instrument, in particular using non-sample dependent measurement techniques, such as Rasch Models. Furthermore, few studies have explored the relationship between item fit to the Rasch Model and clinical utility. The aim of this study was to investigate the dimensionality and measurement properties of the FACT-G with Rasch Models and Factor analysis. METHODS: A factor analysis and Rasch analysis (Partial Credit Model) was carried out on the FACT-G completed by a heterogeneous sample of cancer patients (n = 465). For the Rasch analysis item fit (infit mean squares ≥ 1.30), dimensionality and item invariance were assessed. The impact of removing misfitting items on the clinical utility of the subscales and FACT-G total scale was also assessed. RESULTS: The factor analysis demonstrated a four factor structure of the FACT-G which broadly corresponded to the four subscales of the instrument. Internal consistency for these four scales was very good (Cronbach's alpha 0.72 – 0.85). The Rasch analysis demonstrated that each of the subscales and the FACT-G total scale had misfitting items (infit means square ≥ 1.30). All these scales with the exception of the Social & Family Well-being Scale (SFWB) were unidimensional. When misfitting items were removed, the effect sizes and the clinical utility of the instrument were maintained for the subscales and the total FACT-G scores. CONCLUSION: The results of the traditional factor analysis and Rasch analysis of the FACT-G broadly agreed. Caution should be exercised when utilising the Social & Family Well-being scale and further work is required to determine whether this scale is best represented by two factors. Additionally, removing misfitting items from scales should be performed alongside an assessment of the impact on clinical utility

Oral Pirfenidone in patients with chronic fibrosis resulting from radiotherapy: a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fibrosis is a common side effect after treatment with ionizing radiation. Several methods to ameliorate debilitating fibrosis have been employed but without consistent results. The goal of this pilot study is to determine if Pirfenidone, a novel regulator of cytokine gene expression, has the potential to ameliorate established radiation-induced fibrosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Open label, prospective pilot study of 800 mg three times/day, orally administered Pirfenidone was administered to enrolled patients who were had completed radiation therapy and who had established radiation-induced fibrosis. Range of motion (ROM) was assessed using standard measures, and subjective measures of pain, fatigue, disability and global health were measured every three months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven patients were enrolled of whom 3 had ROM assessments of 1 site and 2 had ROM assessments of 2 sites. Of these assessments, 6 revealed increased ROM during drug intervention while 1 revealed a decreased ROM. There was an overall improvement in the mental composite score of the SF36 while physical composite score was decreased and the vitality score was unchanged. Two patients were removed from the study because of syncopal episodes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Several patients experienced improved function of at least 25% and reported subjective improvement. Pirfenidone may benefit patients with radiation-induced fibrosis and is worthy of a larger well controlled trial.</p

Biofield Therapies: Helpful or Full of Hype? A Best Evidence Synthesis

Biofield therapies (such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch) are complementary medicine modalities that remain controversial and are utilized by a significant number of patients, with little information regarding their efficacy. This systematic review examines 66 clinical studies with a variety of biofield therapies in different patient populations. We conducted a quality assessment as well as a best evidence synthesis approach to examine evidence for biofield therapies in relevant outcomes for different clinical populations. Studies overall are of medium quality, and generally meet minimum standards for validity of inferences. Biofield therapies show strong evidence for reducing pain intensity in pain populations, and moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity hospitalized and cancer populations. There is moderate evidence for decreasing negative behavioral symptoms in dementia and moderate evidence for decreasing anxiety for hospitalized populations. There is equivocal evidence for biofield therapies' effects on fatigue and quality of life for cancer patients, as well as for comprehensive pain outcomes and affect in pain patients, and for decreasing anxiety in cardiovascular patients. There is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. Implications and future research directions are discussed

Biofield Energy Healing from the Inside

Objectives: Biofield energy healing involves controversial concepts, and although numerous controlled trials have evaluated the effects, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon from the perspective of the therapists themselves. Design: Qualitative research. Settings/location: Large Midwest metropolitan area. Interviews were generally conducted in the therapists' place of business. Subjects: Experienced biofield energy therapists from several different disciplines. Interventions: Indepth semistructured interviews, tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, videotapes of demonstrations. Outcome measures: We used a grounded theory approach to uncover relevant dimensions and themes related to the process of biofield energy healing. Results: Major overall themes related to the "nature of energy" and the "healer–client relationship." Seven dimensions of the nature of energy include sources of energy, entities with energy, human energy anatomy, descriptions of energy, movement of energy, action of energy, and perception of energy. The dimensions build on one another to describe an energetic world view. The other major theme, the healer–client relationship, contains the central concept of healing facilitation as the goal of the experience. Compatibility and collaboration are critical to that process, as are creating a sense of trust and adhering to ethical standards. Communication underpins the whole process. Conclusions: The biofield energy therapists share a common energetic world view, wherein they must surrender to a universal energy while simultaneously creating a therapeutic alliance with the client who is also an active agent in healing process. This understanding has the potential to alter our assumptions about research design in biofield energy healing.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63331/1/acm.2004.10.1107.pd