Andreas Hinz1, Joachim Weis2, Hermann Faller3, Elmar Brähler4,5, Martin Härter6, Monika Keller7, Holger Schulz6, Karl Wegscheider8, Uwe Koch6, Kristina Geue4, Heide Götze4, Anja Mehnert4. 1. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. Andreas.Hinz@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 2. Department of Psychooncology, Clinic of Cancer Rehabilitation UKF Reha gGmbH, University Clinic Centre Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Sciences, and Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 4. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 5. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 6. Department and Outpatient Clinic of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Division of Psychooncology, Department for Psychosomatic and General Clinical Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare quality of life (QoL) data from cancer patients in different clinical settings with data from the general population. METHODS: A sample of 4020 German cancer patients (1735 inpatients, 1324 outpatients, 961 participants in rehabilitation treatment) was tested with the EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: Compared with the general population, cancer patients reported markedly worse QoL. There were clinically significant differences on all 15 scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (except one). For the sum score, averaging across 13 scales, the effect size of the difference between cancer patients and the general population was d = 1.16. Inpatients reported the greatest detriments to QoL, followed by the rehabilitation patients and the outpatients (mean sum scores 68.6, 71.0, and 72.3, respectively, compared with 89.2 in the general population). Mean scores for different groups of cancer sites are given separately for the three settings. CONCLUSION: The detriments to QoL were stronger than in comparable studies conducted on data from clinical trials. Since these detriments were found in all three settings to a similar degree, health care providers should offer their services not only to inpatients but to outpatients and patients treated in rehabilitation clinics as well. The data can be used for QoL comparisons of assessments from different settings.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare quality of life (QoL) data from cancerpatients in different clinical settings with data from the general population. METHODS: A sample of 4020 German cancerpatients (1735 inpatients, 1324 outpatients, 961 participants in rehabilitation treatment) was tested with the EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: Compared with the general population, cancerpatients reported markedly worse QoL. There were clinically significant differences on all 15 scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (except one). For the sum score, averaging across 13 scales, the effect size of the difference between cancerpatients and the general population was d = 1.16. Inpatients reported the greatest detriments to QoL, followed by the rehabilitation patients and the outpatients (mean sum scores 68.6, 71.0, and 72.3, respectively, compared with 89.2 in the general population). Mean scores for different groups of cancer sites are given separately for the three settings. CONCLUSION: The detriments to QoL were stronger than in comparable studies conducted on data from clinical trials. Since these detriments were found in all three settings to a similar degree, health care providers should offer their services not only to inpatients but to outpatients and patients treated in rehabilitation clinics as well. The data can be used for QoL comparisons of assessments from different settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer burden; General population; Quality of life; Setting; Sum score
Authors: K Cocks; M T King; G Velikova; G de Castro; M Martyn St-James; P M Fayers; J M Brown Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Chantal Quinten; Francesca Martinelli; Corneel Coens; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Jolie Ringash; Carolyn Gotay; Kristin Bjordal; Eva Greimel; Bryce B Reeve; John Maringwa; Divine E Ediebah; Efstathios Zikos; Madeleine T King; David Osoba; Martin J Taphoorn; Henning Flechtner; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Joachim Weis; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rachel Phillips; Mihir Gandhi; Yin Bun Cheung; Michael P Findlay; Khin Maung Win; Hoang Hoa Hai; Jin Mo Yang; Rolley Rey Lobo; Khee Chee Soo; Pierce K H Chow Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Chantal Quinten; John Maringwa; Carolyn C Gotay; Francesca Martinelli; Corneel Coens; Bryce B Reeve; Henning Flechtner; Eva Greimel; Madeleine King; David Osoba; Charles Cleeland; Jolie Ringash; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joachim Weis; Andrew Bottomley Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Chantal Quinten; Corneel Coens; Irina Ghislain; Efstathios Zikos; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Jolie Ringash; Francesca Martinelli; Divine E Ediebah; John Maringwa; Bryce B Reeve; Eva Greimel; Madeleine T King; Kristin Bjordal; Hans-Henning Flechtner; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joachim Weis; Hans Wildiers; Galina Velikova; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nadja Klafke; Cornelia Mahler; Cornelia von Hagens; Lorenz Uhlmann; Martina Bentner; Andreas Schneeweiss; Andreas Mueller; Joachim Szecsenyi; Stefanie Joos Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Thomas Schulte; Dirk Hofmeister; Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf; Tim Hartung; Andreas Hinz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Katja Leuteritz; Diana Richter; Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Andreas Hinz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-18 Impact factor: 4.147