Literature DB >> 9624237

Survey of the Administration of quality of life (QL) questionnaires in three multicentre randomised trials in cancer. The Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party the CHART Steering Committee.

P Hopwood1, A Harvey, J Davies, R J Stephens, D J Girling, D Gibson, M K Parmar.   

Abstract

We surveyed centres collaborating in two trials in lung cancer (LU12, LU13) and one in lung and head and neck cancer (CHART) to find out how QL questionnaires were being administered, with the aim of standardising procedures and improving compliance. Dedicated local trials staff were funded for CHART but not for the other trials. In all three trials, patients completed a Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) and a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at specified times. 17 of 22 LU12 centres, 9 of 11 LU13 and all 10 CHART centres returned survey forms. In LU12 and LU13, the category of staff responsible for questionnaires varied widely; in CHART, only research staff were involved. This led to more consistency in CHART centres in the administration and collection of questionnaires, and more frequent checking of forms. However, even the CHART administration, although better than in the other two trials, could not be regarded as standardised. All centres were equally affected by logistical problems. These embraced organisational deficits (e.g. unavailability of staff, lack of questionnaires) and patient-related factors (e.g. patient deemed to be too ill, had difficulty reading or left before completing the form). Patient refusals were an uncommon reason for non-compliance and patients were considered to be generally in favour of QL assessment. As a result of these findings, a number of measures have been put in place to increase standardisation of procedures and improve compliance. These include publishing guidelines for protocol writing, providing centres with guidelines for QL administration and information leaflets for patients, together with introducing staff training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9624237     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(97)00347-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  8 in total

1.  Clinical neurological outcome and quality of life among patients with limited small-cell cancer treated with two different doses of prophylactic cranial irradiation in the intergroup phase III trial (PCI99-01, EORTC 22003-08004, RTOG 0212 and IFCT 99-01).

Authors:  C Le Péchoux; A Laplanche; C Faivre-Finn; T Ciuleanu; R Wanders; D Lerouge; R Keus; M Hatton; G M Videtic; S Senan; A Wolfson; R Jones; R Arriagada; E Quoix; A Dunant
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Pain questionnaire performance in advanced prostate cancer: comparative results from two international clinical trials.

Authors:  Donald W Robinson; Ning Zhao; Fitzroy Dawkins; Ming Qi; Dennis Revicki
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Systematic collection of patient reported outcome research data: A checklist for clinical research professionals.

Authors:  Leslie Wehrlen; Mike Krumlauf; Elizabeth Ness; Damiana Maloof; Margaret Bevans
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Gemcitabine plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer--a randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. UK NSCLC Gemcitabine Group. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  H Anderson; P Hopwood; R J Stephens; N Thatcher; B Cottier; M Nicholson; R Milroy; T S Maughan; S J Falk; M G Bond; P A Burt; C K Connolly; M B McIllmurray; J Carmichael
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists.

Authors:  Derek Kyte; Jonathan Ives; Heather Draper; Thomas Keeley; Melanie Calvert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Patient-reported pain and other quality of life domains as prognostic factors for survival in a phase III clinical trial of patients with advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily Nash Smyth; Wei Shen; Lee Bowman; Patrick Peterson; William John; Allen Melemed; Astra M Liepa
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 7.  Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials: is 'in-trial' guidance lacking? a systematic review.

Authors:  Derek G Kyte; Heather Draper; Jonathan Ives; Clive Liles; Adrian Gheorghe; Melanie Calvert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The Patient Deficit Model Overturned: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011).

Authors:  Clare Moynihan; Rebecca Lewis; Emma Hall; Emma Jones; Alison Birtle; Robert Huddart
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.