Literature DB >> 11332225

Perception of quality of life by patients, partners and treating physicians.

K A Wilson1, A J Dowling, M Abdolell, I F Tannock.   

Abstract

The objective of the study was to determine possible differences in perception of quality of life (QoL) between patients with metastatic breast or prostate cancer, their partners, and the treating physician. Patients with metastatic breast cancer (n = 71), and metastatic prostate cancer (n = 29), a partner, and the physician each completed the same QoL questionnaire indicating how they perceived the patient's QoL. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire was used to assess patients with breast cancer and the modified prostate cancer specific quality of life instrument (PROSQOLI) for patients with prostate cancer. There was reasonable agreement in mean scores between patients, and physicians or partners, for many domains of QoL; however, there was substantial discordance between scores when considering individual patients. For patients with metastatic breast cancer, physicians systematically underestimated overall QoL (p = 0.0002), social functioning (p = 0.001), and role functioning (p = 0.008), while partners showed better agreement. With prostate cancer physicians tended to underestimate pain, while mean scores for spouses were more concordant. There is substantial variability between ratings of QoL by physicians or partners, as compared to patient ratings. Medical decisions should be based on information about QoL provided by patients using validated methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11332225     DOI: 10.1023/a:1016647407161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  34 in total

1.  Convergent discriminitive, and predictive validity of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) assessment and comparison with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial-specific module. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Core Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  M R Stockler; D Osoba; P Corey; P J Goodwin; I F Tannock
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Reproducibility along a 10 cm vertical visual analogue scale.

Authors:  J S Dixon; H A Bird
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability.

Authors:  J J Bartko
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  1966-08

4.  Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: a comparison of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial specific module. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Authors:  M R Stockler; D Osoba; P Goodwin; P Corey; I F Tannock
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain.

Authors:  S A Grossman; V R Sheidler; K Swedeen; J Mucenski; S Piantadosi
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 3.612

6.  Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation.

Authors:  H Schipper; J Clinch; A McMurray; M Levitt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Observer variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  J M Blazeby; M H Williams; D Alderson; J R Farndon
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Can they provide valid information about patients' health status and satisfaction with medical care?

Authors:  A M Epstein; J A Hall; J Tognetti; L H Son; L Conant
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status.

Authors:  M L Rothman; S C Hedrick; K A Bulcroft; D H Hickam; L Z Rubenstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  71 in total

1.  Oncologists' assessments of lung cancer patient and family disagreements regarding treatment decision making.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Lindsey Dorflinger; Amma Agyemang; Sherman Baker; Maureen Wilson-Genderson
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 5.705

2.  PedsQL™ Cognitive Functioning Scale in pediatric liver transplant recipients: feasibility, reliability, and validity.

Authors:  James W Varni; Christine A Limbers; Lisa G Sorensen; Katie Neighbors; Karen Martz; John C Bucuvalas; Estella M Alonso
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives.

Authors:  A Simon Pickard; Sara J Knight
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  [The benefits of using patient-reported outcomes in cancer treatment: an overview].

Authors:  Lisa M Wintner; Johannes M Giesinger; Georg Kemmler; Monika Sztankay; Anne Oberguggenberger; Eva-Maria Gamper; Barbara Sperner-Unterweger; Bernhard Holzner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 1.704

5.  Electronic patient-reported outcomes from home in patients recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery: A prospective study measuring symptoms and health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Renee A Cowan; Rudy S Suidan; Vaagn Andikyan; Youssef A Rezk; M Heather Einstein; Kaity Chang; Jeanne Carter; Oliver Zivanovic; Elizabeth J Jewell; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ethan Basch; Dennis S Chi
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  The PedsQL in pediatric patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy: feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales and Neuromuscular Module.

Authors:  Susan T Iannaccone; Linda S Hynan; Anne Morton; Renee Buchanan; Christine A Limbers; James W Varni
Journal:  Neuromuscul Disord       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 4.296

7.  Cross-sectional analysis of health-related quality of life in pediatric liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  Estella M Alonso; Christine A Limbers; Katie Neighbors; Karen Martz; John C Bucuvalas; Thomas Webb; James W Varni
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 4.406

8.  The Effects of Social Support on Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Giuseppe Colloca; Pasquale Colloca
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.037

9.  Health status in routine clinical practice: validity of the clinical COPD questionnaire at the individual patient level.

Authors:  Janwillem W H Kocks; Huib A M Kerstjens; Sandra L Snijders; Barbara de Vos; Jacqueline J Biermann; Peter van Hengel; Jaap H Strijbos; Henk E P Bosveld; Thys van der Molen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Do neurooncological patients and their significant others agree on quality of life ratings?

Authors:  Johannes M Giesinger; Miriam Golser; Astrid Erharter; Georg Kemmler; Gabriele Schauer-Maurer; Guenter Stockhammer; Armin Muigg; Markus Hutterer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.