Literature DB >> 1301115

Patient acceptance and differential perceptions of quality of life measures in a French oncology setting.

M Mercier1, S Schraub, D D Bransfield, J Fournier.   

Abstract

A three-part study evaluated French cancer patients' acceptance of self-rated quality of life measures, the predictive value of these measures, and the agreement between patient and health provider ratings of patient quality of life. In part one, 93% of 137 patients indicated a willingness to complete the Qualite de la Vie-Questionnaire (QOL-Q) and Analogues Lineaires pour la Mesure de la Qualite de vie (LA), and 63.6% indicated a willingness to be interviewed by a psychologist. Willingness to complete the scales was related to hospitalization status and treatment modality. In parts two and three, 100 patients were asked to complete the QOL-Q, LA, the Karnofsky Index (KI) and a side-effects checklist, and to undergo a psychological interview. Following interview, a psychologist rated the patients using the QOL-Q, and classified patient level of emotional distress. Oncologists rated the patient using the KI and the side-effects checklist. The results indicate that the patients' ratings of their quality of life were higher than the psychologist's ratings, and that the QOL-Q has predictive value in identifying severe emotional distress. Low level of patient and physician agreement on the KI was partially explained by patient age and cancer site. A moderate level of agreement was found between patient and physician perceptions of side effects. The study suggests that the QOL-Q, not the LA, may be useful as a screening tool to identify patients with impaired quality of life, and that self-rated measures should be included in quality of life assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1301115     DOI: 10.1007/bf00435436

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


  24 in total

1.  Measuring agreement between two judges on the presence or absence of a trait.

Authors:  J L Fleiss
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Quality of life gets equal consideration as a clinical trial end point.

Authors:  C Vanchieri
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1990-02-07       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Performance status assessment in cancer patients.

Authors:  C Conill; E Verger; M Salamero
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Comparative measurements of quality of survival of lung cancer patients after diagnosis.

Authors:  E Carlens; G Dahlström; E Nõu
Journal:  Scand J Respir Dis       Date:  1970

Review 5.  Evaluating the impact of medical treatment on the quality of life: a 5-year update.

Authors:  J G Hollandsworth
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Quality of life in chronic diseases: perceptions of elderly patients.

Authors:  R A Pearlman; R F Uhlmann
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1988-03

7.  [Measuring agreement between 2 observers: a quantitative case].

Authors:  J Fermanian
Journal:  Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 1.019

8.  Validation of a patient satisfaction scale: theory, methods and practice.

Authors:  B S Hulka; S J Zyzanski
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  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

Review 10.  Performance status assessment among oncology patients: a review.

Authors:  S T Orr; J Aisner
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1986-12
View more
  1 in total

1.  Quality-of-life assessment in cancer.

Authors:  F S van Dam; J Sternswärd
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.981

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.