Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP. RESULTS: From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

International Phase IV Field Study for the Reliability and Validity of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Thyroid Cancer Module EORTC QLQ-THY34.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to validate the new European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Thyroid Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-THY34). Methods: We enrolled 437 thyroid cancer patients from 17 countries. One group (n = 303), undergoing treatment or best supportive care, completed the questionnaires at three time points (before therapy [t1], 6 weeks later [t2], and 6 months after t2 [t3]). A second group (survivors ≥2 years after diagnosis, n = 134) completed it at a random baseline time point and a second time 1 week later. We determined internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha), the scale structure (with confirmatory factor analysis), and discriminant validity (using known-group comparisons). Group 1 data were used to assess responsiveness and group 2 data to determine test-retest reliability using intra-class correlations (ICC). Results: All 34 items fulfilled the criteria to be kept in the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was >0.70 in 8 of the 9 multi-item scales. All standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.40, confirming the proposed scale structure. The ICC was >0.70 in all scales expressing good test-retest reliability. Differences in scale scores between patients with different histology were >5 points in all scales. In all but one of the pre-specified scales (Dry Mouth), changes over time were ≥|4| points between at least two time points. Conclusion: The EORTC QLQ-THY34 with its 9 multi-item and 8 single-item scales is a reliable and valid tool to measure quality of life in thyroid cancer patients and can be used in future trials and studies.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

A multicenter international prospective study of the validity and reliability of a COVID-19-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire for patients with current or previous coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in an international setting. METHODS: This multicenter international methodology study followed standardized guidelines for a four-phase questionnaire development. Here, we report on the pretesting and validation of our international questionnaire. Adults with current or previous COVID-19, in institutions or at home were eligible. In the pretesting, 54 participants completed the questionnaire followed by interviews to identify administration problems and evaluate content validity. Thereafter, 371 participants completed the revised questionnaire and a debriefing form to allow preliminary psychometric analysis. Validity and reliability were assessed (correlation-based methods, Cronbach's α, and intra-class correlation coefficient). RESULTS: Eleven countries within and outside Europe enrolled patients. From the pretesting, 71 of the 80 original items fulfilled the criteria for item-retention. Most participants (80%) completed the revised 71-item questionnaire within 15 min, on paper (n = 175) or digitally (n = 196). The final questionnaire included 61 items that fulfilled criteria for item retention or were important to subgroups. Item-scale correlations were > 0.7 for all but nine items. Internal consistency (range 0.68-0.92) and test-retest results (all but one scale > 0.7) were acceptable. The instrument consists of 15 multi-item scales and six single items. CONCLUSION: The Oslo COVID-19 QLQ-W61© is an international, stand-alone, multidimensional HRQoL questionnaire that can assess the symptoms, functioning, and overall quality of life in COVID-19 patients. It is available for use in research and clinical practice. Further psychometric validation in larger patient samples will be performed.

Linking the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Item Library to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Item Library is an interactive online platform currently composed of 950 unique items (questions) derived from 67 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. PROs complement clinician adverse event (AE) reporting classifications like the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). This work aims to create a standardized framework using the CTCAE to systematically classify symptomatic AEs from the EORTC Item Library through linking individual items to corresponding AEs. METHODS: The EORTC Item Library items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) and linked to an AE if they were described within the AE's title, description, or grading. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing symptoms. Other nonsymptom EORTC items, not described within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classification. Further descriptive codes (eg, multiple issues) were allocated to enable descriptive analysis. Two raters independently coded 26.2% (n = 249) of the items. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, followed by discussion with two additional raters to reach consensus. RESULTS: Overall, 625 (65.8%) EORTC items were linked to 208 different AEs. Three hundred sixty-nine items provide information about non-CTCAE cancer-related issues and were categorized into seven descriptive classifications, including body image; emotional impact of a symptom, diagnosis, or treatment; global health and quality of life; and impact on life and daily activities. Inter-rater agreement for independent coding was 79.1%. Bowel urgency and tenesmus were identified as missing symptoms in CTCAEv5.0. CONCLUSION: The EORTC Item Library provides considerable coverage of CTCAE toxicities, along with other complementary issues important to patients with cancer. Using the CTCAE clinical framework to classify symptomatic PRO items may facilitate PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

Health-related quality of life in patients with COVID-19; international development of a patient-reported outcome measure.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to create a questionnaire to assess the health-related quality of life including functioning, symptoms, and general health status of adult patients with current or previous COVID-19. Here, we report on Phase I and II of the development. METHODS: Internationally recognized methodology for questionnaire development was followed. In Phase I, a comprehensive literature review was performed to identify relevant COVID-19 issues. Decisions for inclusion, exclusion, and data extraction were completed independently in teams of two and then compared. The resulting issues were discussed with health care professionals (HCPs) and current and former COVID-19 patients. The input of HCPs and patients was carefully considered, and the list of issues updated. In Phase II, this updated list was operationalized into items/questions. RESULTS: The literature review yielded 3342 publications, 339 of which were selected for full-text review, and 75 issues were identified. Discussions with 44 HCPs from seven countries and 52 patients from six countries showed that psychological symptoms, worries, and reduced functioning lasted the longest for patients, and there were considerable discrepancies between HCPs and patients concerning the importance of some of the symptoms. The final list included 73 issues, which were operationalized into an 80-item questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The resulting COVID-19 questionnaire covers health-related quality of life issues relevant to COVID-19 patients and is available in several languages. The next steps include testing of the applicability and patients' acceptability of the questionnaire (Phase IIIA) and preliminary psychometric testing (Phase IIIB).

Equivalence testing of a newly developed interviewer-led telephone script for the EORTC QLQ-C30.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is a widely used generic self-report measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for cancer patients. However, no validated voice script for interviewer-led telephone administration was previously available. The aim of this study was to develop a voice script for interviewer administration via telephone. METHODS: Following guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force, a randomised cross-over equivalence study, including cognitive debriefing, was conducted to assess equivalence between paper and telephone administration modes. Assuming an expected intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.70 and a minimally acceptable level of 0.50, a sample size of 63 was required. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews with five cancer patients found the voice script to be clear and understandable. Due to a protocol deviation in the first wave of testing, only 26 patients were available for analyses. A second wave of recruitment was conducted, adding 37 patients (n = 63; mean age 55.48; 65.1% female). Total ICCs for mode comparison ranged from 0.72 (nausea and vomiting, 95% CI 0.48-0.86) to 0.90 (global health status/QoL, 95% CI 0.80-0.95; pain, 95% CI 0.79-0.95; constipation, 95% CI 0.80-0.95). For paper first administration, all ICCs were above 0.70, except nausea and vomiting (ICC 0.55; 95% CI 0.24-0.76) and financial difficulties (ICC 0.60; 95% CI 0.31-0.79). For phone first administration, all ICCs were above 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: The equivalence testing results support the voice script's validity for administration of the QLQ-C30 via telephone.

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users' educational needs regarding content and learning methods. METHODS: The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings. RESULTS: Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive). CONCLUSION: Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales are scored on a 4-point response scale, ranging from not at all to very much. Previous studies have shown that the German translation of the response option quite a bit as mäßig violates interval scale assumptions, and that ziemlich is a more appropriate translation. The present studies investigated differences between the two questionnaire versions. METHODS: The first study employed a balanced cross-over design and included 450 patients with different types of cancer from three German-speaking countries. The second study was a representative survey in Germany including 2033 respondents. The main analyses included compared the ziemlich and mäßig version of the questionnaire using analyses of covariance adjusted for sex, age, and health burden. RESULTS: In accordance with our hypothesis, the adjusted summary score was lower in the mäßig than in the ziemlich version; Study 1: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.8 to - 1.3), p = 0.006, Study 2: - 3.1 (95% CI - 4.6 to - 1.5), p < 0.001. In both studies, this effect was pronounced in respondents with a higher health burden; Study 1: - 6.8 (95% CI - 12.2 to - 1.4), p = 0.013; Study 2: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.3 to - 1.7), p = 0.002. CONCLUSIONS: We found subtle but consistent differences between the two questionnaire versions. We recommend to use the optimized response option for the EORTC QLQ-C30 as well as for all other German modules. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on the German Registry for Clinical Studies (reference number DRKS00012759, 04th August 2017, https://www.drks.de/DRKS00012759 ).

Health-related quality of life issues, including symptoms, in patients with active COVID-19 or post COVID-19; a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review was performed to identify all relevant health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken in April 2020. In four teams of three reviewers each, all abstracts were independently reviewed for inclusion by two reviewers. Using a pre-defined checklist of 93 criteria for each publication, data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and subsequently compared and discussed. If necessary, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The search was updated in February 2021 to retrieve new publications on HRQoL issues including issues related to the long-term consequences of COVID-19. RESULTS: The search in April 2020 identified 3342 potentially relevant publications, and 339 publications were selected for full-text review and data extraction. We identified 75 distinct symptoms and other HRQoL issues categorized into 12 thematic areas; from general symptoms such as fever, myalgia, and fatigue, to neurological and psychological issues. The updated search revealed three extra issues experienced during active disease and long-term problems with fatigue, psychological issues and impaired cognitive function. CONCLUSION: This first comprehensive systematic review provides a detailed overview of the wide range of HRQoL issues experienced by patients with COVID-19 throughout the course of the disease. It demonstrates the devastating impact of the disease and provides critically important information for clinicians, to enable them to better recognize the disease and to provide knowledge important for treatment and follow-up. The results provided the foundation for the international development of a COVID-19 specific patient-reported HRQoL questionnaire.

Gender effects on quality of life and symptom burden in patients with lung cancer: results from a prospective, cross-cultural, multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer causes impairment of health-related quality of life (QoL), but little is known about gender aspects in QoL and symptom burden of lung cancer patients. The aim of this study was to investigate gender differences in QoL as assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the updated lung cancer module. METHODS: In a prospective, international, cross-cultural, multicenter study that was undertaken to update the lung cancer-specific module EORTC QLQ-LC13, patients filled in the core questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 and the updated lung cancer module. Gender differences were calculated for all QoL scores using ANCOVAs that controlled for known and suspected confounders. Comparisons with historic data were drawn. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (82 female and 118 male, median age 65 years) were recruited. With the exception of coughing (estimated marginal means: women 33.86 and men 43.52, P=0.022) and diarrhea (estimated marginal means: women 26.01 and men 17.93, P=0.038) there were no significant QoL gender differences. Fatigue was the most pronounced symptom in both, men and women, outpacing typical respiratory symptoms. Quite generally, our sample of lung cancer patients showed considerably worse QoL in all scores when compared to EORTC reference data (lung cancer and combined cancer diagnoses, mean differences up to 13.70 and 21.54 score points, respectively) and to a German norm reference sample (up to 35.37 score points). CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the literature in showing that the typical QoL gender difference effect (women doing worse than men) may not be generalizable across all patient samples.

Incorporating the Patient Voice in Sarcoma Research: How Can We Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in This Heterogeneous Group of Patients? A Study Protocol.

Sarcomas comprise 1% of adult tumors and are very heterogeneous. Long-lasting and cumulative treatment side-effects detract from the (progression-free) survival benefit of treatment. Therefore, it is important to assess treatment effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as well. However, questionnaires capturing the unique issues of sarcoma patients are currently lacking. Given the heterogeneity of the disease, the development of such an instrument may be challenging. The study aims to (1) develop an exhaustive list of all HRQoL issues relevant to sarcoma patients and determine content validity; (2) determine a strategy for HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients. We will conduct an international, multicenter, mixed-methods study (registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04071704) among bone or soft tissue sarcoma patients ≥18 years, using EORTC Quality of Life Group questionnaire development guidelines. First, an exhaustive list of HRQoL issues will be generated, derived from literature and patient (n = 154) and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 30). Subsequently, another group of sarcoma patients (n = 475) and HCPs (n = 30) will be asked to rate and prioritize the issues. Responses will be analyzed by priority, prevalence and range of responses for each item. The outcome will be a framework for tailored HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients, taking into account sociodemographic and clinical variables.

Reviewing back translation reports of questionnaires: the EORTC conceptual framework and experience.

INTRODUCTION: In the process of translating patient-reported outcomes measures (forward translation(s), reconciliation, back translation(s), review, pilot-testing, review, final translation), there is a general consensus amongst the key players in the field that the back translation review is an important step. Despite this, there has been little guidance published on how to perform it. Areas covered: Having assessed the most recent back translation reports reviewed by the Translation Unit at the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in Brussels, we have identified two concepts to help guide the back translation review process: the underlying issue (the problem that the item measures) and the structure (the linguistic and formal construction of the item). This paper presents these concepts and how they are used in the review process. Expert commentary: Despite certain difficulties it might pose, back translation review remains one of the standard steps to assure concept equivalence. This paper aims at starting a much-needed exchange of experience and knowledge among people who perform reviews as part of the process of translating patient-reported outcomes measures.

Emerging good practices for Translatability Assessment (TA) of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures.

This paper presents emerging Good Practices for Translatability Assessment (TA) of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures. The ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) undertook the review of several TA approaches, with the collaboration of organizations who are involved in conducting TA, and members of the TCA-SIG. The effort led to agreement by the writing group on Good Practices for 1) the terminology to be used in referring to translatability process, 2) the best definition of TA, 3) the methodology that is recommended at each step of the process, 4) the persons involved in TA, 5) the timing of assessment, 6) the review criteria for TA, and 7) the recommendations to be made at the end of the TA process. With input from the TCA-SIG membership and in consultation with experts in the field, these emerging good practices can guide the future use of TA in the development of PROs.

EORTC QLQ-COMU26: a questionnaire for the assessment of communication between patients and professionals. Phase III of the module development in ten countries.

PURPOSE: Communication between patients and professionals is one major aspect of the support offered to cancer patients. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group (QLG) has developed a cancer-specific instrument for the measurement of different issues related to the communication between cancer patients and their health care professionals. METHODS: Questionnaire development followed the EORTC QLG Module Development Guidelines. A provisional questionnaire was pre-tested (phase III) in a multicenter study within ten countries from five cultural areas (Northern and South Europe, UK, Poland and Taiwan). Patients from seven subgroups (before, during and after treatment, for localized and advanced disease each, plus palliative patients) were recruited. Structured interviews were conducted. Qualitative and quantitative analyses have been performed. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients were interviewed. Nine items were deleted and one shortened. Patients' comments had a key role in item selection. No item was deleted due to just quantitative criteria. Consistency was observed in patients' answers across cultural areas. The revised version of the module EORTC QLQ-COMU26 has 26 items, organized in 6 scales and 4 individual items. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC COMU26 questionnaire can be used in daily clinical practice and research, in various patient groups from different cultures. The next step will be an international field test with a large heterogeneous group of cancer patients.

Quality-of-Life Priorities in Patients with Thyroid Cancer: A Multinational European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Phase I Study.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine quality of life (QoL) issues that are relevant to thyroid cancer patients cross-culturally, and to identify those with highest relevance to them in addition to the more general issues covered by the core European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). METHODS: A systematic literature search provided a list of potentially relevant QoL issues to supplement the core questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30, which is widely used in research and in care and addresses QoL issues relevant to all groups of cancer patients. A panel of experts revised this list, and thyroid cancer patients rated the issues regarding their relevance for QoL by selecting the 25 issues that they would include in a thyroid cancer-specific QoL module. RESULTS: The literature search and expert discussion provided a list of 71 QoL issues that was rated by thyroid cancer patients (n = 110) from seven countries. All issues were of high priority to at least some of the patients. The most frequently selected issues were sudden attacks of tiredness, exhaustion, quality of sleep, employment, social support, fear of cancer progression, fear of second operation, difficulties swallowing, and globus sensation. CONCLUSIONS: Thyroid cancer patients cross-culturally rate fatigue-related issues as highly important for their QoL, calling for increased efforts to find successful treatments for this problem. Vocational rehabilitation is also highly relevant for them and should therefore be an important aim of multidisciplinary care. The third important area of concern is psychological issues, especially fear of progression and of additional treatments.

Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) covers 13 typical symptoms of lung cancer patients and was the first module developed in conjunction with the EORTC core quality-of-life (QL) questionnaire. This review investigates how the module has been used and reported in cancer clinical trials in the 20 years since its publication. Thirty-six databases were searched with a prespecified algorithm. This search plus an additional hand search generated 770 hits, 240 of which were clinical studies. Two raters extracted data using a coding scheme. Analyses focused on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 240 clinical studies that were identified using the LC13, 109 (45%) were RCTs. More than half of the RCTs were phase 3 trials (n = 58). Twenty RCTs considered QL as the primary endpoint, and 68 considered it as a secondary endpoint. QL results were addressed in the results section of the article (n = 89) or in the abstract (n = 92); and, in half of the articles, QL results were presented in the form of tables (n = 53) or figures (n = 43). Furthermore, QL results had an impact on the evaluation of the therapy that could be clearly demonstrated in the 47 RCTs that yielded QL differences between treatment and control groups. The EORTC QLQ-LC13 fulfilled its mission to be used as a standard instrument in lung cancer clinical trials. An update of the LC13 is underway to keep up with new therapeutic trends and to ensure optimized and relevant QL assessment in future trials.

An evaluation of the response category translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the translated response categories used in eight translations of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which is used in many international clinical trials. Twenty-eight of the 30 items in the questionnaire have the same four response categories: "Not at all", "A little", "Quite a bit" and "Very Much". METHODS: People with knowledge of both English and one of eight European languages were asked to complete an Internet survey. The strength (intensity) of the translated categories was assessed using two separate approaches: one using a verbal response scale and the other a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine people participated in the survey. Most translations were rated similarly to English. The largest differences were for the German translation of "Quite a bit", which was rated 16.3 points lower than the corresponding English category on a 0-100 VAS. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the translated categories were found to be similar to the English versions and should continue to be used. We recommend that three translated categories should be considered for revision. Similar surveys could be used to assess the categories used in other translated quality of life instruments.