ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Head and Neck Cancer
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1606655
Comparisons of the QLICP-HN and FACT-H&N instruments for measuring quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer
Provisionally accepted
- 1Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang, China
- 2Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, China
- 3Haiyuan College, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan Province, China
- 4The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (Yunnan Tumor hospital), Kunming, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background. Two head and neck cancer quality-of-life(QoL) measurement tools, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N) and the Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Head and Neck Cancer (QLICP-HN), are widely used in China, but several researchers tend to be confused about which QoL measurement tool to choose before conducting QoL measurements. This investigation aimed to employ data procured from patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer to conduct a comparative analysis of these two assessment tools.Methods. Questionnaire outcomes were scrutinized at the subscale level by utilizing scale measurement analytics, correlation evaluation, validation examination, and association analyses.Results. Correlations between the two QoL instruments: the QLICP-HN and the FACT-H&N, fluctuated from r = 0.30 (indicating weak agreement) within the social/family domain to r = 0.80 (indicating robust agreement) within the psychological domain. Intermediate r values were associated with the remaining domains. Examination of typical correlations between the two subscales unveiled a moderate overall concurrence between the two tools (first typical correlation coefficient r = 0.89, although the overall redundancy remained at less than 57%). In the overall measurement performance, each of the two QoL tools exhibited particular strengths. However, the QLICP-HN showcased higher total scale internal consistency coefficients and a more extensive range of subscale internal consistency coefficients than the FACT-H&N scales, albeit it exhibited inferior discriminant and convergent validity.Conclusion.This empirical investigation highlights that, despite some overlap in the information provided by the two QoL instruments, substantial differences persist, thereby negating the possibility of one tool substituting for the other. Consequently, outcomes derived from these two QoL measures cannot be directly juxtaposed.
Keywords: QLICP-HN, head and neck cancer, quality-of-life, FACT-H&N, Instruments
Received: 06 Apr 2025; Accepted: 06 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Shen, chi, Yang, Li, Tan and Wan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jianfeng Tan, Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, China
Chonghua Wan, Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.