Literature DB >> 18344470

Proxy assessment of quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: how accurate are partners and urologists?

R Pearcy1, D Waldron, C O'Boyle, R MacDonagh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the ability of partners and clinicians to make proxy judgements on behalf of patients with prostate cancer relating to selection of life priorities and quality of life (QoL).
DESIGN: 47 consecutive patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma, and their partners, were recruited. The partners were asked to assess, by proxy, the QoL of the patient by completion of a series of interview-led questionnaires assessing global QoL (SEIQoL-DW), health-related QoL (FACT-P) and overall QoL (visual analogue score [VAS]). The patients' clinicians were asked to complete the SEIQoL-DW and VAS by proxy as soon as possible after a consultation with the patient.
SETTING: Patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma, their partners and their clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proxy scores for SEIQoL-DW, FACT-P and VAS, as provided by partners and clinicians.
RESULTS: 25 partners made a proxy assessment of the patients. The results showed that partners were able to select similar QoL cues to those of the patients (Spearman-Rank correlation 0.89). Comparison of the QoL scores obtained from patients and partners in proxy using the questionnaires showed no statistically significant difference (paired t-test). Urologists were poor predictors of areas of life (cues) that were important to their patients. The doctors overemphasized the importance of survival, postoperative complications, urinary symptoms, sexual ability, activities of daily living and finance, but underestimated the importance of wife, family, home and religion. Comparison of the QoL scores obtained from patients and urologists by proxy showed a significantly lower score when assessed by urologists using the SEIQoL-DW questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS: Partners are able to accurately assess, by proxy, the areas of life that are of importance to patients. Clinicians, however, who are charged with making decisions on behalf of patients, are very poor judges of their patients' life priorities and QoL. This illustrates that conventional views held by most doctors regarding the priorities patients set themselves when planning treatment should be called into question and consequently suggests that the way in which doctors and patients arrive at treatment decisions must be reviewed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18344470      PMCID: PMC2270239          DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.081002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   5.344


  16 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of quality of life in surgery.

Authors:  C A O'Boyle
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Quality-of-life measurement in advanced cancer: assessing the individual.

Authors:  D Waldron; C A O'Boyle; M Kearney; M Moriarty; D Carney
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review.

Authors:  M A Sprangers; N K Aaronson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Psychosocial morbidity in prostate cancer: II. A comparison of patients and partners.

Authors:  A M Cliff; R P MacDonagh
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  A M Hickey; G Bury; C A O'Boyle; F Bradley; F D O'Kelly; W Shannon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-06

6.  Comparison of patient and spouse assessments of health related quality of life in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  K C Sneeuw; P C Albertsen; N K Aaronson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure.

Authors:  D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Validity of the support team assessment schedule: do staffs' ratings reflect those made by patients or their families?

Authors:  I J Higginson; M McCarthy
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.762

9.  Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?

Authors:  M L Slevin; H Plant; D Lynch; J Drinkwater; W M Gregory
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses.

Authors:  K C Sneeuw; N K Aaronson; M A Sprangers; S B Detmar; L D Wever; J H Schornagel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of caregiver responses for patient health-related quality of life in adult cancer care.

Authors:  Jessica K Roydhouse; Ira B Wilson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Lack of Patient-Clinician Concordance in Cancer Patients: Its Relation With Patient Variables.

Authors:  Kavita D Chandwani; Fengmin Zhao; Gary R Morrow; Teresa L Deshields; Lori M Minasian; Judith Manola; Michael J Fisch
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret.

Authors:  J J Aning; R J Wassersug; S L Goldenberg
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Triadic treatment decision-making in advanced cancer: a pilot study of the roles and perceptions of patients, caregivers, and oncologists.

Authors:  Thomas W LeBlanc; Nick Bloom; Steven P Wolf; Sarah G Lowman; Kathryn I Pollak; Karen E Steinhauser; Dan Ariely; James A Tulsky
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 5.  Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care.

Authors:  Roxanne E Jensen; Claire F Snyder; Amy P Abernethy; Ethan Basch; Arnold L Potosky; Aaron C Roberts; Deena R Loeffler; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Do Cohabitants Reliably Complete Questionnaires for Patients in a Terminal Cancer Stage when Assessing Quality of Life, Pain, Depression, and Anxiety?

Authors:  Olivier Q Groot; Nuno Rui Paulino Pereira; Michiel E R Bongers; Paul T Ogink; Erik T Newman; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan; Kevin A Raskin; Santiago A Lozano-Calderon; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Patient-reported outcomes in palliative gastrointestinal stenting: a Norwegian multicenter study.

Authors:  Lene Larssen; Asle W Medhus; Marianne J Hjermstad; Hartwig Körner; Tom Glomsaker; Taran Søberg; Dagfinn Gleditsch; Oistein Hovde; Arild Nesbakken; Jan K Tholfsen; Knut Skreden; Truls Hauge
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Somatically ill persons' self-nominated quality of life domains: review of the literature and guidelines for future studies.

Authors:  Elsbeth F Taminiau-Bloem; Mechteld R M Visser; Carol Tishelman; Margot A Koeneman; Florence J van Zuuren; Mirjam A G Sprangers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-03       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Do neurooncological patients and their significant others agree on quality of life ratings?

Authors:  Johannes M Giesinger; Miriam Golser; Astrid Erharter; Georg Kemmler; Gabriele Schauer-Maurer; Guenter Stockhammer; Armin Muigg; Markus Hutterer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Expected Versus Experienced Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Recovering From Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Brandon J Neal; Becky Hawrusik; Stuart Lipsitz; Carrie C Lubitz; Chris Gibbons; Mary Brindle; Robert D Sinyard; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Christy E Cauley; Alex B Haynes
Journal:  Ann Surg Open       Date:  2021-04-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.