J Ringash1, A Bezjak. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital/University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment outcome for head and neck cancer. Our purpose was to critically review published disease-specific QOL instruments. METHODS: Medline and Cancerlit were searched from 1966-1999. Eight disease-specific QOL instruments were identified, described, and appraised for development, sensibility, reliability, validity and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Several of the available instruments have been well-developed and characterized. No one instrument is ideal for all purposes. When selecting a disease-specific QOL instrument for head and neck cancer patients, careful consideration must be given to disease subsite, treatment, timing of assessment, clinical setting, study purpose and research question. CONCLUSION: Validation of QOL instruments is an ongoing process. Direct comparisons of different instruments may help to establish the most appropriate questionnaire for each situation. Efforts should be focused on the evaluation of existing instruments, rather than the development of new questionnaires.
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment outcome for head and neck cancer. Our purpose was to critically review published disease-specific QOL instruments. METHODS: Medline and Cancerlit were searched from 1966-1999. Eight disease-specific QOL instruments were identified, described, and appraised for development, sensibility, reliability, validity and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Several of the available instruments have been well-developed and characterized. No one instrument is ideal for all purposes. When selecting a disease-specific QOL instrument for head and neck cancerpatients, careful consideration must be given to disease subsite, treatment, timing of assessment, clinical setting, study purpose and research question. CONCLUSION: Validation of QOL instruments is an ongoing process. Direct comparisons of different instruments may help to establish the most appropriate questionnaire for each situation. Efforts should be focused on the evaluation of existing instruments, rather than the development of new questionnaires.
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Ingrid Riphagen; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nicole M Rogus-Pulia; Margaret C Pierce; Bharat B Mittal; Steven G Zecker; Jeri A Logemann Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.438
Authors: V Loimu; A A Mäkitie; L J Bäck; H Sintonen; P Räsänen; R Roine; K Saarilahti Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Raghav C Dwivedi; Suzanne St Rose; Edward J Chisholm; Pouya Youssefi; Mohammed Sultan Ul Hassan; Afroze S Khan; Behrad Elmiyeh; Cyrus J Kerawala; Peter M Clarke; Christopher M Nutting; Peter H Rhys-Evans; Kevin J Harrington; Rehan Kazi Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 2.503