E Ballatori1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Public Health, University of L'Aquila, Italy. ballatori@sscaql.cc.univaq.it
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current means of evaluating the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, generally employ a multidimensional approach involving validated self-administered questionnaires. In measuring QoL, as well as in interpreting the results of an assessment, the patient, questionnaire, and setting of administration may all give rise to problems. DESIGN: Based on our experience and review of a large number of published papers, the most relevant problems in evaluating QoL of cancer patients are highlighted. RESULTS: The difficulties that patients have with the most frequently used psychometric questionnaires are demonstrated by the fact that more than 10% of patients who gave their consent to be enrolled in a longitudinal study measuring QoL did not fill out the first questionnaire. This percentage is higher among older patients having a low level of education. in patients with disseminated disease, and among those with a low performance status. Moreover, in longitudinal studies, there is a very high incidence of drop-outs, often correlated with the progression of disease, so that the results are sometimes inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life, depending not only on the type and stage of disease, and the administered treatment, but also on patient characteristics, should be assessed only in a randomised clinical trial. In any case, the most relevant problem is connected to the selection bias due to drop-outs. Reasons for this should be sought in the apparent complexity of the questionnaire and inadequate information given to the patient. Simpler instruments, which can be filled out in a shorter period of time, and specific training by research nurses could help minimize this excessive phenomenon.
BACKGROUND: The current means of evaluating the quality of life (QoL) of cancerpatients, generally employ a multidimensional approach involving validated self-administered questionnaires. In measuring QoL, as well as in interpreting the results of an assessment, the patient, questionnaire, and setting of administration may all give rise to problems. DESIGN: Based on our experience and review of a large number of published papers, the most relevant problems in evaluating QoL of cancerpatients are highlighted. RESULTS: The difficulties that patients have with the most frequently used psychometric questionnaires are demonstrated by the fact that more than 10% of patients who gave their consent to be enrolled in a longitudinal study measuring QoL did not fill out the first questionnaire. This percentage is higher among older patients having a low level of education. in patients with disseminated disease, and among those with a low performance status. Moreover, in longitudinal studies, there is a very high incidence of drop-outs, often correlated with the progression of disease, so that the results are sometimes inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life, depending not only on the type and stage of disease, and the administered treatment, but also on patient characteristics, should be assessed only in a randomised clinical trial. In any case, the most relevant problem is connected to the selection bias due to drop-outs. Reasons for this should be sought in the apparent complexity of the questionnaire and inadequate information given to the patient. Simpler instruments, which can be filled out in a shorter period of time, and specific training by research nurses could help minimize this excessive phenomenon.
Authors: Chun Fan Lee; Raymond Ng; Nan Luo; Nan Soon Wong; Yoon Sim Yap; Soo Kien Lo; Whay Kuang Chia; Alethea Yee; Lalit Krishna; Celest Wong; Cynthia Goh; Yin Bun Cheung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Chun Fan Lee; Nan Luo; Raymond Ng; Nan Soon Wong; Yoon Sim Yap; Soo Kien Lo; Whay Kuang Chia; Alethea Yee; Lalit Krishna; Celest Wong; Cynthia Goh; Yin Bun Cheung Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Richard J Swartz; George P Baum; Robert L Askew; Judy Lynn Palmer; Merrick I Ross; Janice N Cormier Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: A M Oza; V Castonguay; D Tsoref; I Diaz-Padilla; K Karakasis; H Mackay; S Welch; J Weberpals; P Hoskins; M Plante; D Provencher; K Tonkin; A Covens; P Ghatage; J Gregoire; H Hirte; D Miller; B Rosen; J Maroun; M Buyse; C Coens; M F Brady; G C E Stuart Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Soo-Mee Bang; Se Hoon Park; Hee Geun Kang; Jung In Jue; In Hee Cho; Young Ho Yun; Eun Kyung Cho; Dong Bok Shin; Jae Hoon Lee Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 3.603