PURPOSE: To examine the effects on process of care and patient well-being, of the regular collection and use of health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) data in oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study with repeated measures involving 28 oncologists, 286 cancer patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (regular completion of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale on touch-screen computers in clinic and feedback of results to physicians); attention-control group (completion of questionnaires, but no feedback); or control group (no HRQL measurement in clinic before encounters). Primary outcomes were patient HRQL over time, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire, physician-patient communication, and clinical management, measured by content analysis of tape-recorded encounters. Analysis employed mixed-effects modeling and multiple regression. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention and attention-control groups had better HRQL than the control group (P =.006 and P =.01, respectively), but the intervention and attention-control groups were not significantly different (P =.80). A positive effect on emotional well-being was associated with feedback of data (P =.008), but not with instrument completion (P =.12). A larger proportion of intervention patients showed clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL. More frequent discussion of chronic nonspecific symptoms (P =.03) was found in the intervention group, without prolonging encounters. There was no detectable effect on patient management (P =.60). In the intervention patients, HRQL improvement was associated with explicit use of HRQL data (P =.016), discussion of pain, and role function (P =.046). CONCLUSION: Routine assessment of cancer patients' HRQL had an impact on physician-patient communication and resulted in benefits for some patients, who had better HRQL and emotional functioning.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To examine the effects on process of care and patient well-being, of the regular collection and use of health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) data in oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study with repeated measures involving 28 oncologists, 286 cancerpatients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (regular completion of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale on touch-screen computers in clinic and feedback of results to physicians); attention-control group (completion of questionnaires, but no feedback); or control group (no HRQL measurement in clinic before encounters). Primary outcomes were patient HRQL over time, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire, physician-patient communication, and clinical management, measured by content analysis of tape-recorded encounters. Analysis employed mixed-effects modeling and multiple regression. RESULTS:Patients in the intervention and attention-control groups had better HRQL than the control group (P =.006 and P =.01, respectively), but the intervention and attention-control groups were not significantly different (P =.80). A positive effect on emotional well-being was associated with feedback of data (P =.008), but not with instrument completion (P =.12). A larger proportion of intervention patients showed clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL. More frequent discussion of chronic nonspecific symptoms (P =.03) was found in the intervention group, without prolonging encounters. There was no detectable effect on patient management (P =.60). In the intervention patients, HRQL improvement was associated with explicit use of HRQL data (P =.016), discussion of pain, and role function (P =.046). CONCLUSION: Routine assessment of cancerpatients' HRQL had an impact on physician-patient communication and resulted in benefits for some patients, who had better HRQL and emotional functioning.
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Amanda L Blackford; Jonathan Sussman; Daryl Bainbridge; Doris Howell; Hsien Y Seow; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Martin P Charns; Mary K Foster; Elaine C Alligood; Justin K Benzer; James F Burgess; Donna Li; Nathalie M McIntosh; Allison Burness; Melissa R Partin; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-05
Authors: Kathleen W Wyrwich; Stacie M Metz; Kurt Kroenke; William M Tierney; Ajit N Babu; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Susan E Yount; Nan Rothrock; Michael Bass; Jennifer L Beaumont; Deborah Pach; Thomas Lad; Jyoti Patel; Maria Corona; Rebecca Weiland; Katherine Del Ciello; David Cella Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Y El Miedany; M El Gaafary; Nadia El Aroussy; S Bahlas; M Hegazi; D Palmer; S Youssef Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 2.980