Current opinion in supportive and palliative care · 2026
Comparing FACIT-fatigue and EORTC QLQ-FA12 for assessing the quality of life in people with cancer-related fatigue.
СтатьяСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Britney, Randhawa Amari, Patel Ayush, Bruera Eduardo, Hart Nicolas H, Bottomley Andrew, Cella David, Al-Khaifi Muna, Patel Partha, Chow Edward, Wong Henry C Y
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Two common quality of life (QoL) questionnaires for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Fatigue 12 (QLQ-FA12) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue). This systematic review compared their content, validity, and psychometric properties.
RECENT FINDINGS: Twenty-four studies were included. The QLQ-FA12 (12 items) provides physical, emotional, and cognitive subscales, while the FACIT-Fatigue (13 items) captures self-reported fatigue and its impact on daily function. Both instruments demonstrated validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity. Construct validity was supported by correlations with QoL and physical-function measures, and confirmatory factor analyses upheld their intended dimensional structures. The QLQ-FA12's 4-point question format offers distinct domain scores, whereas the FACIT-Fatigue's 5-point statement format yields a single total score. The QLQ-FA12 is preferred when a multidimensional profile is needed, such as in trials addressing specific fatigue drivers or pairing with QLQ-C30 domains. The FACIT-Fatigue suits brief screening or large-scale studies where efficiency and a single total fatigue score are priorities.
SUMMARY: The EORTC QLQ-FA12 and FACIT-Fatigue are both sufficiently validated for assessing CRF-related QoL. The QLQ-FA12 is more appropriate when a multidimensional profile is required, whereas FACIT-Fatigue suits contexts needing a unidimensional total severity score.
RECENT FINDINGS: Twenty-four studies were included. The QLQ-FA12 (12 items) provides physical, emotional, and cognitive subscales, while the FACIT-Fatigue (13 items) captures self-reported fatigue and its impact on daily function. Both instruments demonstrated validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity. Construct validity was supported by correlations with QoL and physical-function measures, and confirmatory factor analyses upheld their intended dimensional structures. The QLQ-FA12's 4-point question format offers distinct domain scores, whereas the FACIT-Fatigue's 5-point statement format yields a single total score. The QLQ-FA12 is preferred when a multidimensional profile is needed, such as in trials addressing specific fatigue drivers or pairing with QLQ-C30 domains. The FACIT-Fatigue suits brief screening or large-scale studies where efficiency and a single total fatigue score are priorities.
SUMMARY: The EORTC QLQ-FA12 and FACIT-Fatigue are both sufficiently validated for assessing CRF-related QoL. The QLQ-FA12 is more appropriate when a multidimensional profile is required, whereas FACIT-Fatigue suits contexts needing a unidimensional total severity score.