AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To evaluate the rate of cancer patients who do not fill out a quality of life (QL) questionnaire, their characteristics and the reasons for not filling out the QL questionnaire. METHODS: Consecutive cancer patients who were seen in 79 Italian medical oncology and radiotherapy centers over a period of one week were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the importance of 46 domains of quality of life, each one scored on 4 levels (not at all, a little, much, and very much). RESULTS: Of 6,918 cancer patients, 820 (11.9%) did not fill out the questionnaire. The most important reasons for not complying were: illiteracy (17.9%), lack of glasses or poor eye-sight (17.4%), poor physical condition (11.9%), poor psychological condition (5.9%), refusal (28.7%). The questionnaires significantly less filled out were those of older patients with low performance status and educational level or with locally advanced or disseminated disease and inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study reveal the risk of selection bias in QL assessment in randomized controlled trials and suggest the need for more complete information regarding the aim of QL evaluation and the necessity of a proxy's help to overcome the problem, with the awareness that the proxy's influence could modify the response. The impact of the lack of patient compliance on the QL results still remains to be evaluated.
AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To evaluate the rate of cancerpatients who do not fill out a quality of life (QL) questionnaire, their characteristics and the reasons for not filling out the QL questionnaire. METHODS: Consecutive cancerpatients who were seen in 79 Italian medical oncology and radiotherapy centers over a period of one week were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the importance of 46 domains of quality of life, each one scored on 4 levels (not at all, a little, much, and very much). RESULTS: Of 6,918 cancerpatients, 820 (11.9%) did not fill out the questionnaire. The most important reasons for not complying were: illiteracy (17.9%), lack of glasses or poor eye-sight (17.4%), poor physical condition (11.9%), poor psychological condition (5.9%), refusal (28.7%). The questionnaires significantly less filled out were those of older patients with low performance status and educational level or with locally advanced or disseminated disease and inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study reveal the risk of selection bias in QL assessment in randomized controlled trials and suggest the need for more complete information regarding the aim of QL evaluation and the necessity of a proxy's help to overcome the problem, with the awareness that the proxy's influence could modify the response. The impact of the lack of patient compliance on the QL results still remains to be evaluated.
Authors: Enzo Ballatori; Fausto Roila; Benedetta Ruggeri; Maura Betti; Samanta Sarti; Giancarla Soru; Giorgio Cruciani; Massimo Di Maio; Biffi Andrea; Robert R Deuson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lisa A Kachnic; Kathryn Winter; Todd Wasserman; David Kelsen; Robert Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; Christopher G Willett; Bruce D Minsky Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2011-03
Authors: Elisabeth Ståhl; Sven-Arne Jansson; Ann-Christin Jonsson; Klas Svensson; Bo Lundbäck; Fredrik Andersson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2003-06-02 Impact factor: 3.186