Literature DB >> 16791743

The association between symptom burdens and utility in Chinese cancer patients.

Ya-Chen Tina Shih1, Xin Shelley Wang, Scott B Cantor, Charles S Cleeland.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the relationship between the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), an instrument measuring the severity of symptoms common to patients with cancer, and utility derived from the SF-36.
METHODS: Cancer patients from Tianjin Cancer Hospital in China (n = 249) completed a demographic questionnaire and Chinese versions of the MDASI and SF-36. Using a published algorithm converting SF-36 scores to standard gamble (SG) utilities, we examined the association between utility and individual symptoms using Spearman's rank correlation, and explored the association between utility and aggregate symptom scores through multivariate regression analyses.
RESULTS: The mean SG utility was 0.81 (SD = 0.11); utilities were significantly but moderately correlated with the majority of symptoms, especially those of distress, sadness, fatigue, and pain. Regression models showed a significantly negative association between the total symptom score and the utility. After controlling for sociodemographics, cancer stage and performance status, a significantly negative association between the total symptom scores and utility was found in the multivariate analyses. We also found the total number of severe symptoms to be a stronger predictor of "disutility."
CONCLUSIONS: Symptom measures were significantly albeit moderately associated with utility derived from the SF-36 scores, suggesting that a full study with rigorously collected utilities is worth exploring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16791743     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-006-0011-2

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


  27 in total

1.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Randomised trial of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist.

Authors:  J A Kramer; D Curran; M Piccart; J C de Haes; P F Bruning; J G Klijn; M Bontenbal; C van Pottelsberghe; M Groenvold; R Paridaens
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  M C Weinstein; J E Siegel; M R Gold; M S Kamlet; L B Russell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The effects of pain severity on health-related quality of life: a study of Chinese cancer patients.

Authors:  X S Wang; C S Cleeland; T R Mendoza; M C Engstrom; S Liu; G Xu; X Hao; Y Wang; X S Ren
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  D A Revicki; R M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches.

Authors:  A M Stiggelbout; J C de Haes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory.

Authors:  C S Cleeland; T R Mendoza; X S Wang; C Chou; M T Harle; M Morrissey; M C Engstrom
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Quality of life after radiation therapy of cerebral low-grade gliomas of the adult: results of a randomised phase III trial on dose response (EORTC trial 22844). EORTC Radiotherapy Co-operative Group.

Authors:  G M Kiebert; D Curran; N K Aaronson; M Bolla; J Menten; E H Rutten; E Nordman; M E Silvestre; M Pierart; A B Karim
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index.

Authors:  Bernie J O'Brien; Marian Spath; Gordon Blackhouse; J L Severens; Paul Dorian; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  5 in total

1.  Is traditional rural lifestyle a barrier for quality of life assessment? A case study using the Short Form 36 in a rural Chinese population.

Authors:  Chaojie Liu; Ningxiu Li; Xiaohui Ren; Danping Liu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients with melanoma.

Authors:  Janice N Cormier; Robert L Askew
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.495

3.  Health variations among breast-cancer patients from different disease states: evidence from China.

Authors:  Qing Yang; Xuexin Yu; Wei Zhang
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 4.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Community- and Choice-Based Health State Utility Values for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Erik F Blom; Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Manraj N Kaur; Jiajun Yan; Anne F Klassen; Justin P David; Dilshan Pieris; Manraj Sharma; Louise Bordeleau; Feng Xie
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 2.749

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.