Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber1, Daniel Sj Costa2, Richard Norman3, Monika Janda4, David P Smith5, Peter Grimison6, Eva-Marie Gamper7, Madeleine T King8. 1. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW. 2. Pain Management Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW. 3. Curtin University, Perth, WA. 4. Centre for Health Services Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD. 5. Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW. 6. Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, NSW. 7. Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 8. Quality of Life Office, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To generate Australian general population reference values for the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancer patients (QLQ-C30); to compare Australian values with published EORTC general population reference values, and to explore associations between socio-demographic and health characteristics and QLQ-C30 subscale scores. DESIGN: Analysis of responses to cross-sectional, online survey (QLQ-C30), March 2015 - February 2016, and supplementary health-related and socio-demographic questions. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 1979 people quota-sampled from a national online survey panel to be representative of the Australian general population by age and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean QLQ-C30 subscale scores, adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions, by sex and age group. RESULTS: Data for 1821 participants were analysed (92% completion rate); 924 (50.7%) were women. Higher psychological distress was associated with worse outcomes on all QLQ-C30 subscales. Better self-reported general health was associated with better global quality of life and better functioning (except cognitive functioning), and less fatigue, pain, dyspnoea and insomnia. Having arthritis or rheumatism was associated with poorer global quality of life, and poorer physical, role and social functioning, and with more fatigue, pain, insomnia, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Although differences between Australian QLQ-C30 subscale scores and EORTC general population values were clinically trivial, the Australian values are more accurate benchmarks for QLQ-C30 results from Australians with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our Australian QLQ-C30 reference values provide normative benchmarks that facilitate interpretation of data for Australians with cancer in terms of burden of disease and its treatment. In survivorship studies and studies without pre-disease baseline data, comparisons with reference values can indicate the extent to which people have returned to better levels of health.
OBJECTIVES: To generate Australian general population reference values for the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire for cancerpatients (QLQ-C30); to compare Australian values with published EORTC general population reference values, and to explore associations between socio-demographic and health characteristics and QLQ-C30 subscale scores. DESIGN: Analysis of responses to cross-sectional, online survey (QLQ-C30), March 2015 - February 2016, and supplementary health-related and socio-demographic questions. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 1979 people quota-sampled from a national online survey panel to be representative of the Australian general population by age and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean QLQ-C30 subscale scores, adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions, by sex and age group. RESULTS: Data for 1821 participants were analysed (92% completion rate); 924 (50.7%) were women. Higher psychological distress was associated with worse outcomes on all QLQ-C30 subscales. Better self-reported general health was associated with better global quality of life and better functioning (except cognitive functioning), and less fatigue, pain, dyspnoea and insomnia. Having arthritis or rheumatism was associated with poorer global quality of life, and poorer physical, role and social functioning, and with more fatigue, pain, insomnia, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Although differences between Australian QLQ-C30 subscale scores and EORTC general population values were clinically trivial, the Australian values are more accurate benchmarks for QLQ-C30 results from Australians with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our Australian QLQ-C30 reference values provide normative benchmarks that facilitate interpretation of data for Australians with cancer in terms of burden of disease and its treatment. In survivorship studies and studies without pre-disease baseline data, comparisons with reference values can indicate the extent to which people have returned to better levels of health.
Authors: Martin R Stockler; Andrew J Martin; Ian D Davis; Haryana M Dhillon; Stephen D Begbie; Kim N Chi; Simon Chowdhury; Xanthi Coskinas; Mark Frydenberg; Wendy E Hague; Lisa G Horvath; Anthony M Joshua; Nicola J Lawrence; Gavin M Marx; John McCaffrey; Ray McDermott; Margaret McJannett; Scott A North; Francis Parnis; Wendy R Parulekar; David W Pook; M Neil Reaume; Shahneen Sandhu; Alvin Tan; Thean Hsiang Tan; Alastair Thomson; Francisco Vera-Badillo; Scott G Williams; Diana G Winter; Sonia Yip; Alison Y Zhang; Robert R Zielinski; Christopher J Sweeney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Micha J Pilz; Eva-Maria Gamper; Fabio Efficace; Juan I Arraras; Sandra Nolte; Gregor Liegl; Matthias Rose; Johannes M Giesinger Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Bernhard Holzner; Johannes M Giesinger; Andrew Bottomley; Shaad Ansari; Ludwig von Butler; Georg Kemmler Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Margaret-Ann Tait; Daniel S J Costa; Rachel Campbell; Richard Norman; Stephan Schug; Claudia Rutherford Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-11-24
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Rachel Campbell; Dayna Jan Fullerton; Sabina Kleitman; Daniel S J Costa; Dion Candelaria; Margaret Ann Tait; Richard Norman; Madeleine King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: M Bao; D Y Shi; H X Shi; X L Liu; M H Duan; J L Zhuang; X Du; L Qin; W H Hui; R Liang; M F Wang; Y Chen; D Y Li; W Yang; G S Tang; W H Zhang; X Kuang; W Su; Y Q Han; L M Chen; J H Xu; Z G Liu; J Huang; C T Zhao; H Y Tong; J D Hu; C Y Chen; X Q Chen; Z J Xiao; Q Jiang Journal: Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi Date: 2021-12-14