Feasibility and face validity of two patient reported outcome measures for nausea: Preferences of children with cancer

Abstract

PurposeTo optimize recognition and management of nausea in children with cancer using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to identify preferences of children with cancer regarding two validated tools: the Baxter Retching Faces (BARF) scale and the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT). Design and methodsThis quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study (n = 34) used bespoke questionnaires to measure feasibility and face validity of the BARF and the PeNAT. Feasibility included the items: understanding, ease of use, and communication. Face validity was studied in terms of the degree in which the faces of both PROMs corresponded with children's feelings of nausea. A descriptive and comparative analysis of the data was performed. ResultsBoth the BARF and the PeNAT were rated by the children as feasible, and no significant differences were found. However, regarding the item communication, the PeNAT did not reach the cut-off value (≥80% of all children scored neutral, agree or totally agree on the Likert scale). Regarding face validity, only the BARF reached the cut-off value and corresponded significantly better with children's feelings of nausea than the PeNAT. ConclusionAccording to children with cancer, only the BARF is both feasible and meets criteria for face validity. Therefore, the BARF is recommended as a PROM for reporting nausea in children with cancer. However, possible differences between age groups should be taken into account for future research. Practice implicationsThis study will help health care professionals in making a patient-centered and informed choice when using a PROM for measuring nausea in children with cancer.