Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC)
Functional Living Index-Cancer · Also known as: FLIC, Functional Living Index–Cancer
The Functional Living Index-Cancer is a 22-item patient self-report instrument that measures health-related quality of life in cancer patients across physical, social, emotional, and overall QoL domains. Developed by Schipper and colleagues in the mid-1980s, the FLIC was among the first disease-specific QoL instruments for cancer and served as a foundational model for subsequent comprehensive measures like the EORTC QLQ-C30, bridging early generic QoL concepts with cancer-specific measurement.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
FLIC is appropriate for cancer QoL assessment in clinical trials comparing treatments, supportive care interventions, or rehabilitation programs. Use in observational research examining QoL trajectories across cancer types and treatment phases. In routine clinical oncology, FLIC can complement symptom-screening tools (ESAS, Distress Thermometer) to provide comprehensive patient-reported outcomes spanning symptoms and QoL. Particularly useful for detecting late effects on QoL in cancer survivors (persistent functional limitations, social disruption, emotional distress) despite apparent disease control.
Strengths & limitations
- Multidimensional design capturing physical, social, emotional, and overall QoL; provides comprehensive QoL picture beyond symptom focus.
- Moderate assessment burden (~5–8 min); balances comprehensiveness with clinical feasibility for routine use.
- Well-validated in cancer populations; established psychometric properties and responsiveness to change with treatment and supportive interventions.
- Accessible, straightforward items and response formats; suitable for diverse cancer patient populations including those with lower health literacy.
- Foundational instrument in cancer QoL measurement; substantial published literature enabling comparison across studies and populations.
- Superseded in many contemporary trials by EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT instruments, which offer greater granularity and disease-specific modules. FLIC less commonly used in recent research.
- Mixed response formats (7-point semantic differential plus 5-point Likert) may create respondent confusion; standardized anchor terminology varies across items.
- No disease-specific modules or extensions (unlike FACT-B, FACT-L, EORTC modules); limited ability to capture cancer-type-specific concerns (e.g., breast-specific, prostate-specific).
- Subscale composition and scoring rules may vary across published studies and instruments versions; careful attention to version and scoring method is essential for accurate interpretation and comparison.
Frequently asked
How does FLIC compare to FACT-G or EORTC QLQ-C30?
FLIC (22 items) predates both. FACT-G (27 items, 4 subscales) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (30 items, multiple subscales) offer greater granularity and are more widely used in contemporary trials. FLIC remains valid but is less commonly chosen for new research due to FACT and EORTC's greater subscale detail. Choose FLIC if already integrated into study protocol or for consistency with historical data; otherwise, FACT-G or EORTC QLQ-C30 are preferred.
What is a clinically meaningful change in FLIC score?
Published estimates suggest 10–15 point changes on a 0–100 transformed scale represent clinically meaningful improvement, depending on baseline QoL and intervention type. Effect-size benchmarks (Cohen d, small ~0.2, medium ~0.5, large ~0.8) supplement raw score interpretation. Anchor-based minimal clinically important differences specific to cancer populations are preferable when available.
Can FLIC be used in non-cancer populations?
FLIC was developed and extensively validated specifically in cancer populations. The four-domain QoL model (physical, social, emotional, overall) is conceptually relevant to other chronic illnesses, but normative data, cutoff thresholds, and responsiveness are cancer-specific. Use in non-cancer populations requires dedicated validation studies. Consider disease-specific QoL instruments for non-cancer conditions.
What should I do if FLIC subscale scores are discordant (e.g., good physical QoL but poor emotional QoL)?
Discordant profiles are clinically meaningful and warrant targeted intervention. High physical with low emotional suggests mood-related distress despite maintained function; consider psychology referral or mood screening (PHQ-9, GAD-7). High social with low physical suggests functional limitation affecting engagement; consider rehabilitation or symptom management. Examine clinical context (disease status, treatment phase, comorbidities) to guide interpretation and intervention.
Sources
- Schipper, H., Clinch, J., & Olweny, C. L. M. (1996). Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 11–23). Lippincott-Raven. link ↗
- Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst, 85(5), 365–376. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Functional Living Index-Cancer. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/oncology-nursing/functional-living-index-cancer
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- ESASOncology Nursing↔ compare
- FACT-BOncology Nursing↔ compare
- FACT-GOncology Nursing↔ compare
- MSASOncology Nursing↔ compare