Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

01-09-2013

Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardised quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer

Authors: Timothy R. Wilson, Yvonne Birks, David J. Alexander

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 7/2013

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Purpose

Despite being readily available and practical to administer, standardised instruments are not widely used in clinical practice. Concerns have been raised about the validity of applying such data to individuals. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the practical difficulties of interpreting standardised HrQoL data for individual patients.

Methods

A purposive sample of 20 patients with colorectal cancer was chosen from 210 participants in a prospective HrQoL study. In an in-depth interview, individual participants were asked about their experiences and to review the accuracy of their own HrQoL data, collected over preceding months using four different instruments (FACT-C QLQ-C30/CR38 SF12 and EQ-5D). A framework qualitative analysis was used to develop emerging themes.

Results

A number of themes emerged from the analysis to explain why disparity arose between the patients’ experiences and the questionnaire data in certain situations. These included weakly worded items that over emphasised health problems, incongruous items within scales causing unpredictable scores, insufficient levels of response causing insensitivity, and unrecognised reversal of item direction causing contradictory scores. Exogenous factors such as mood and co-morbidities also influenced HrQoL reporting.

Conclusions

Data from standardised instruments can be used to measure the HrQoL of individuals in clinical practice, but the instruments used need careful selection and interpretation. Appropriate guidance linked to the themes of this study is provided.

previous article Philosophical perspectives on response shift

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Snyder, C. F., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Use of patient reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet, 374, 369–370.PubMedCrossRef

Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. British Medical Journal, 322(7297), 1297–1300.PubMedCrossRef

Koller, M., & Lorenz, W. (1998). Quality of life research in patients with rectal cancer: Traditional approaches versus a problem-solving oriented perspective. Langenbecks Archives of Surgery, 383(6), 427–436.CrossRef

Giesinger, J., Kemmler, G., Meranger, V., Gamper, E., Oberguggenberger, A., Sperner-Unterweger, B., et al. (2009). Towards the implementation of quality of life monitoring in daily clinical routine: Methodological issues and clinical implication. Breast Care, 4, 148–154.PubMedCrossRef

Carr, A. J., & Higginson, I. J. (2001). Are quality of life measures patient centred? British Medical Journal, 322(7298), 1357–1360.PubMedCrossRef

O’Boyle, C. A. (1994). The schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life (SEIQoL). International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 3–23.

Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., Kliempt, P., & Ruta, D. (2007). Twelve years experience with the patient generated index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 705–715.PubMedCrossRef

Velikova, G., Wright, P., Smith, A. B., Stark, D., Perren, T., Brown, J., et al. (2001). Self-reported quality of life of individual cancer patients: Concordance of results with disease course and medical records. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 2064–2073.PubMed

Wilson, T. R., Alexander, D. J., & Kind, P. (2006). Measuring health related quality of life in the early follow-up of colorectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 49, 1692–1702.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D. M., & Gandek, B. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey. Lincoln, Rhode Island: QualyMetric.

11.

Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey[see comment]. BMJ, 316, 736–741.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire[see comment]. Quality of Life Research, 2, 169–180.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Sprangers, M. A., Te, V. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1999). The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European organization for research and treatment of cancer study group on quality of life. European Journal of Cancer, 35, 238–247.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Ritchie, J., & Spencer, J. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge.

16.

Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. A. (2007) Rasch and factor analysis of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G). Health & Quality of Life Outcomes 5.

17.

Luckett, T., King, M. T., Butow, P. N., Oguchi, M., Rankin, N., Price, M. A., et al. (2010). Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: Issues, evidence and recommendations. Annals of Oncology, 22, 2179–2190.CrossRef

18.

Baker, F. (2001). The basics of item response theory. University of Maryland: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.

19.

Mallinson, S. (2002). Listening to respondents: a qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 11–21.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Kuenstner, S., Langelotz, C., Budach, V., Possinger, K., Krause, B., & Sezer, O. (2002). The comparability of quality of life scores. A multitrait multimethod analysis of the EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36 and FLIC questionnaires. European Journal of Cancer, 38, 339–348.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Apolone, G., Filiberti, A., Cifani, S., Ruggiata, R., & Mosconi, P. (1998). Evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire: a comparison with SF-36 health survey in a cohort of Italian long-survival cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 9, 549–557.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Overcash, J., Extermann, M., Parr, J., Perry, J., & Balducci, L. (2001). Validity and reliability of the FACT-G scale for use in the older person with cancer. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 591–596.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Paterson, C. (2004). Seeking the patient’s perspective: a qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Quality of Life Research, 13, 871–881.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Blazeby, J. M., Kavadas, V., Vickery, C. W., Greenwood, R., Berrisford, R. G., & Alderson, D. (2005). A prospective comparison of quality of life measures for patients with esophageal cancer. Quality of Life Research, 14, 387–393.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Kemmler, G., Holzner, B., Kopp, M., Dunser, M., Margreiter, R., Greil, R., et al. (1999). Comparison of two quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients: The functional assessment of cancer therapy-general and the European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire-C30. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 2932–2940.PubMed

26.

Holzner, B., Kemmler, G., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Kopp, M., Dunser, M., Margreiter, R., et al. (2001). Quality of life measurement in oncology–a matter of the assessment instrument? European Journal of Cancer, 37, 2349–2356.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., Bezjak, A., Degner, L., & Velji, K. (2009). Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: A study of six presentation formats. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 6949–6956.CrossRef

28.

Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Klinkhammer-Schalke, M., Koller, M., Ehret, C., Steiger, B., Ernst, B., Wyatt, J. C., et al. (2008). Implementing a system of quality-of-life diagnosis and therapy for breast cancer patients: Results of an exploratory trial as a prerequisite for a subsequent RCT. British Journal of Cancer, 99, 415–422.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Gujral, S., Conroy, T., Fleissner, C., Sezer, O., King, P. M., Avery, K. N., et al. (2007). Assessing quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: An update of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Cancer, 29, 276–281.

31.

Koller, M., Kussman, J., Lorenz, W., Jenkins, M., Voss, M., Arens, E., et al. (1996). Symptom reporting in cancer patients. Cancer, 77, 983–995.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Koller, M., Heitman, K., Kussman, J., & Lorenz, W. (1999). Symptom reporting in cancer patients II. Cancer, 86, 1609–1620.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardised quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer
Authors: Timothy R. Wilson
Yvonne Birks
David J. Alexander
Publication date: 01-09-2013
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0303-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

Validation of the Food Allergy Quality of Life—Parental Burden Questionnaire in the UK

Health-related quality of life, obesity, and fitness in schoolchildren: the Cuenca study

Validation of the Korean version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in patients with chronic non-cancer pain

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study

Determinants of health-related quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease: a path analysis

The association of responsiveness in oral and general health-related quality of life with patients’ satisfaction of new complete dentures