% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Pham:300250,
author = {P. D. Pham$^*$ and J. Ubels$^*$ and R. Eckford$^*$ and M.
Schlander$^*$},
title = {{M}easuring the {S}ocioeconomic {I}mpact of {C}ancer: {A}
{S}ystematic {R}eview and {S}tandardized {A}ssessment of
{P}atient-{R}eported {O}utcomes ({PRO}) {I}nstruments.},
journal = {PharmacoEconomics - open},
volume = {9},
number = {4},
issn = {2509-4262},
address = {[Cham]},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-00711},
pages = {519-539},
year = {2025},
note = {#EA:C100#LA:C100# / 2025 Jul;9(4):519-539},
abstract = {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.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.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.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.},
subtyp = {Review Article},
cin = {C100},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C100-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40180755},
doi = {DOI:10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/300250},
}