Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Psychometric properties of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire for child self-report and importance of mucositis in children treated with chemotherapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objectives of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the self-report Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire (OMDQ) and to measure the importance of mucositis in children receiving intensive chemotherapy.

Methods

Children ≥12 years of age receiving intensive chemotherapy for leukemia/lymphoma or undergoing stem cell transplantation were asked to complete the OMDQ daily for 21 days after chemotherapy. Other measures of mucositis obtained concurrently with OMDQ included the World Health Organization (WHO) mucositis scale, the pain visual analog scale (VAS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Esophageal Cancer Sub-scale (FACT-ECS). The importance of mucositis was estimated using a VAS, time trade-off technique, and willingness to pay to avoid mucositis.

Results

Fifteen children participated. Test–retest reliability demonstrated at least moderate correlation for all questions within the OMDQ. Assessment of construct validity of the OMDQ revealed at least moderate correlation with WHO, VAS, and FACT-ECS for questions regarding pain, swallowing, drinking, and eating. Effect on sleeping and talking had lower correlations than that expected a priori. The diarrhea question of the OMDQ did not correlate with other measures of mucositis. Severe mucositis is important to children, while mild mucositis is less important to them. Children were willing to pay moderate amounts of money to prevent mucositis.

Conclusions

The OMDQ exhibits test–retest reliability, and most questions show construct validity with the exceptions of the sleep, talking, and diarrhea questions. Therefore, the OMDQ should not be used unmodified as a self-report instrument in children with cancer. Severe mucositis is of importance to these children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen CL, Kuppermann M, Caughey AB, Zane LT (2008) A community-based study of acne-related health preferences in adolescents. Arch Dermatol 144:988–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng KK, Goggins WB, Lee VW, Thompson DR (2008) Risk factors for oral mucositis in children undergoing chemotherapy: a matched case–control study. Oral Oncol 44:1019–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheuk DK, Lee TL, Chiang AK, Ha SY, Chan GC (2008) Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for high-risk brain tumors in children. J Neuro-Oncol 86:337–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Colton T (1974) Statistics in medicine. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, p 211

    Google Scholar 

  5. Darling G, Eton DT, Sulman J, Casson AG, Celia D (2006) Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer 107:854–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Donaldson C (2001) Eliciting patients’ values by use of ‘willingness to pay’: letting the theory drive the method. Health Expect 4:180–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Druley TE, Hayashi R, Mansur DB, Zhang QJ, Barnes Y, Trinkaus K, Witty S, Thomas T, Klein EE, DiPersio JF, Adkins D, Shenoy S (2009) Early outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic SCT in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies following single fraction TBI. Bone Marrow Transpl 43:307–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Drummond MF (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond MF, Drummond MF Mfteeohcp (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  10. Figliolia SL, Oliveira DT, Pereira MC, Lauris JR, Mauricio AR, Oliveira DT, Mello de Andrea ML (2008) Oral mucositis in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: analysis of 169 paediatric patients. Oral Dis 14:761–766

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gibson F, Auld EM, Bryan G, Coulson S, Craig JV, Glenny AM (2010) A systematic review of oral assessment instruments: what can we recommend to practitioners in children’s and young people’s cancer care? Cancer Nurs 33:E1–E19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gold MR (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanemann W (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66:332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hayden JA, Mior SA, Verhoef MJ (2003) Evaluation of chiropractic management of pediatric patients with low back pain: a prospective cohort study. J Manip Physiol Ther 26:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Griffith LE, Ferrie PJ (1997) Minimum skills required by children to complete health-related quality of life instruments for asthma: comparison of measurement properties. Eur Respir J 10:2285–2294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Karthaus M, Rosenthal C, Ganser A (1999) Prophylaxis and treatment of chemo- and radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis—are there new strategies? Bone Marrow Transpl 24:1095–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Press J, Gidron Y, Maimon M, Gonen A, Goldman V, Buskila D (2003) Effects of active distraction on pain of children undergoing venipuncture: who benefits from it? Pain Clin 15:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R (2007) Measuring health preferences for use in cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. PharmacoEconomics 25:713–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ryan M, Watson V (2009) Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 18:389–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith RD (2001) The relative sensitivity of willingness-to-pay and time-trade-off to changes in health status: an empirical investigation. Health Econ 10:487–497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stiff PJ, Erder H, Bensinger WI, Emmanouilides C, Gentile T, Isitt J, Lu ZJ, Spielberger R (2006) Reliability and validity of a patient self-administered daily questionnaire to assess impact of oral mucositis (OM) on pain and daily functioning in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Bone Marrow Transpl 37:393–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tomlinson D, Ethier MC, Judd P, Doyle J, Gassas A, Naqvi A, Sung L (2011) Reliability and construct validity of the oral mucositis daily questionnaire in children with cancer. Eur J Cancer 47:383–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tomlinson D, Gibson F, Treister N, Baggott C, Judd P, Hendershot E, Maloney AM, Doyle J, Feldman B, Sung L (2008) Challenges of mucositis assessment in children: expert opinion. Eur J Oncol Nurs 12:469–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tomlinson D, Isitt JJ, Barron RL, Doyle J, Judd P, Gassas A, Naqvi A, Sung L (2008) Determining the understandability and acceptability of an oral mucositis daily questionnaire. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 25:107–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tomlinson D, Judd P, Hendershot E, Maloney AM, Sung L (2007) Measurement of oral mucositis in children: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 15:1251–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. World Health Organization (1979) Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yi MS, Britto MT, Sherman SN, Moyer MS, Cotton S, Kotagal UR, Canfield D, Putnam FW, Carlton-Ford S, Tsevat J (2009) Health values in adolescents with or without inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr 154:527–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Richard Wing, Tania Chung, and Celia Lai in terms of patient recruitment and data management. LS is supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The project was supported by an Operating Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#86648) and a Connaught award from the University of Toronto. This project was also supported by Kraft Canada Inc.

Conflict of interest statement

None to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lillian Sung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manji, A., Tomlinson, D., Ethier, MC. et al. Psychometric properties of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire for child self-report and importance of mucositis in children treated with chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 20, 1251–1258 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1211-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1211-z

Keywords

Navigation