Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from HQLO and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Review

The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation

Kimberly Webster, David Cella* and Kathleen Yost

Author Affiliations

Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE), Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Evanston, Illinois, United States

For all author emails, please log on.

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003, 1:79  doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-79

Published: 16 December 2003

Abstract

The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System is a collection of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires targeted to the management of chronic illness. The measurement system, under development since 1987, began with the creation of a generic CORE questionnaire called the

    F
unctional
    A
ssessment of
    C
ancer
    T
herapy-
    G
eneral (FACT-G). The FACT-G (now in Version 4) is a 27-item compilation of general questions divided into four primary QOL domains: Physical Well-Being, Social/Family Well-Being, Emotional Well-Being, and Functional Well-Being. It is appropriate for use with patients with any form of cancer, and extensions of it have been used and validated in other chronic illness condition (e.g., HIV/AIDS; multiple sclerosis; Parkinson's disease; rheumatoid arthritis), and in the general population. The FACIT Measurement System now includes over 400 questions, some of which have been translated into more than 45 languages. Assessment of any one patient is tailored so that the most-relevant questions are asked and administration time for any one assessment is usually less than 15 minutes. This is accomplished both by the use of specific subscales for relevant domains of HRQOL, or computerized adaptive testing (CAT) of selected symptoms and functional areas. FACIT questionnaires can be administered by self-report (paper or computer) or interview (face-to-face or telephone). Available scoring, normative data and information on meaningful change now allow one to interpret results in the context of a growing literature base.