The effect of systematic information and communication technology (ICT) training programme for people with intellectual disabilities

2005-2006 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journalVersion of RecordPublishe

Colorectal cancer testing and associated factors among older Chinese adults

Letter to the Editorlink_to_subscribed_fulltex

Translation and validation of the Traditional Chinese version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (Version 2)

Background: Cancer patients often experience severe financial distress due to the high cost of their treatment, and strategies are needed to objectively measure this financial distress. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) is one instrument used to measure such financial distress. This study aimed to translate the COST-FACIT (Version 2) [COST-FACIT-v2] instrument into traditional Chinese (COST-FACIT-v2 [TC]) and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation method was adopted. The translated version was reviewed by an expert panel and by 20 cancer patients for content validity and face validity, respectively, and 640 cancer patients, recruited from three oncology departments, completed the translated scale. Its reliability was evaluated in terms of internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis has been used to evaluate the one- and two-factor structures of the instrument reported in the literature. The convergent validity was examined by the correlation with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological distress. Known-group validity was examined by the difference in the COST-FACIT-v2 (TC) total mean score between groups with different income levels and frequency of health care service use. Results: The COST-FACIT-v2 (TC) showed good content and face validity and demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.86) and acceptable test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.71). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the one- and two-factor structures of the instrument that have been reported in the literature could not be satisfactorily fitted to the data. Psychological distress correlated significantly with the COST-FACIT-v2 (TC) score (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). HRQOL showed a weak to moderate negative correlation with the COST-FACIT-v2 (TC) score (r = − 0.23 to − 0.46; p < 0.001). Significant differences were seen among the COST-FACIT-v2 (TC) scores obtained in groups of different income level and frequency of health care service use. Conclusions: The COST-FACIT-v2 (TC) showed some desirable psychometric properties to support its validity and reliability for assessing cancer patients’ level of financial toxicity.Full Tex

Identifying a cut-off score for the COST measure to indicate high financial toxicity and low quality of life among cancer patients

Purpose: To identify a cut-off score for the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) to predict a clinical implication of a high level of financial toxicity (FT). Methods: A total of 640 cancer patients were recruited from three regional hospitals in Hong Kong. They completed a questionnaire comprising the COST measure and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) instrument. The cut-off score for the COST that predicts the lowest quartile of the FACT-G total score was identified by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The sample was then stratified by this cut-off score, and characteristics were compared using Fisher’s exact, chi-squared or independent sample t-test. Results: The mean scores were 20.1 ± 8.8 for the COST and 71.6 ± 15.5 for the FACT-G. The ROC analysis suggested that the cut-off of 17.5 yielded an acceptable sensitivity and specificity. Characteristics of patients with a higher level of FT included being younger, having a monthly household income of < 10,000 HKD (approximately 1290 USD), being more likely not employed, having stage IV cancer and receiving targeted and/or immunotherapy. In terms of financial support, a higher proportion of these patients had discussed financial issues with health care professionals and had received financial assistance. In addition, fewer of them were covered by private health insurance. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a cut-off for the COST that can be used to screen for FT in clinical settings. In addition, while a considerable proportion of high-FT patients received targeted therapy, they often received financial assistance. There is a gap between financial hardship and assistance that warrants attention.No Full Tex