Comparison of two instruments for measurement of quality of life in clinical practice - a qualitative study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Lena Ring¹  Bengt Glimelius²  Åsa Kettis¹  Mathilde Hedlund Lindberg¹  Lena Wettergren³ 

[1] Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden

关键词: Quality of life;    SEIQoL;    Measures;    Health-related quality of life;    Gastrointestinal cancer;    Cognitive interviews;   

Others  :  1090742
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-14-115

 received in 2014-02-14, accepted in 2014-10-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The study aimed to investigate the meaning patients assign to two measures of quality of life: the Schedule for Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) and the SEIQoL-DW Disease Related (DR) version, in a clinical oncology setting. Even though the use of quality of life assessments has increased during the past decades, uncertainty regarding how to choose the most suitable measure remains. SEIQoL-DW versions assesses the individual’s perception of his or her present quality of life by allowing the individual to nominate the domains to be evaluated followed by a weighting procedure resulting in qualitative (domains) as well as quantitative outcomes (index score).

Methods

The study applied a cross-sectional design with a qualitative approach and collected data from a purposeful sample of 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Patients were asked to complete two measures, SEIQoL-DW and the SEIQoL-DR, to assess quality of life. This included nomination of the areas in life considered most important and rating of these areas; after completion patients participated in cognitive interviews around their selections of areas. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim which was followed by analysis using a phenomenographic approach.

Results

The analyses of nominated areas of the two measures resulted in 11 domains reflecting what patients perceived had greatest impact on their quality of life. Analysis of the cognitive interviews resulted in 16 thematic categories explaining the nominated domains. How patients reflected around their quality of life appeared to differ by version (DW vs. DR). The DW version more often related to positive aspects in life while the DR version more often related to negative changes in life due to having cancer.

Conclusions

The two SEIQoL versions tap into different concepts; health-related quality of life, addressing losses and problems related to having cancer and, quality of life, more associated with aspects perceived as positive in life. The SEIQoL-DR and the SEIQoL-DW are recommended in clinical practice to take both negative and positive aspects into account and acting on the problems of greatest importance to the patient.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Wettergren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McNair A, Blazeby J: Health-related quality-of-life assessment in GI cancer randomized trials: improving the impact on clinical practice. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2009, 9:559-567.
• [2]Sprangers MA: Disregarding clinical trial-based patient-reported outcomes is unwarranted: Five advances to substantiate the scientific stringency of quality-of-life measurement. Acta Oncol 2010, 49:155-163.
• [3]Claassens L, van Meerbeeck J, Coens C, Quinten C, Ghislain I, Sloan EK, Wang XS, Velikova G, Bottomley A: Health-related quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer: an update of a systematic review on methodologic issues in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29(15):2104-2120.
• [4]Basch E, Abernethy AP: Supporting clinical rractice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29(8):954-956.
• [5]Morris J, Perez D, McNoe B: The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Qual Life Res 1998, 7:85-91.
• [6]Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, Selby PJ: Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer 2002, 86:51-59.
• [7]Ferrans CE: Advances in measuring quality-of-life outcomes in cancer care. Semin Oncol Nurs 2010, 26:2-11.
• [8]Gill TM, Feinstein AR: A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994, 272:619-626.
• [9]Ring L, Lindblad AK, Bendtsen P, Viklund E, Jansson R, Glimelius B: Feasibility and validity of a computer administered version of SEIQoL-DW. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:1173-1177.
• [10]Waldron D, O’Boyle CA, Kearney M, Moriarty M, Carney D: Quality-of-life measurement in advanced cancer: assessing the individual. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:3603-3611.
• [11]Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM: A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The Patient-Generated Index. Med Care 1994, 32:1109-1126.
• [12]Hickey AM, Bury G, O’Boyle CA, Bradley F, O’Kelly FD, Shannon W: A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. BMJ 1996, 313:29-33.
• [13]O’Boyle CA, McGee H, Hickey A, O’Malley K, Joyce CR: Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet 1992, 339:1088-1091.
• [14]Wettergren L, Kettis-Lindblad A, Sprangers M, Ring L: The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualised quality-of-life instrument: a systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:737-746.
• [15]Wettergren L, Bjorkholm M, Axdorph U, Bowling A, Langius-Eklof A: Individual quality of life in long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s lymphoma–a comparative study. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:545-554.
• [16]Sprangers MA, Sloan JA, Veenhoven R, Cleeland CS, Halyard MY, Abertnethy AP, Baas F, Barsevick AM, Bartels M, Boomsma DI, Chauhan C, Dueck AC, Frost MH, Hall P, Klepstad P, Martin NG, Miaskowski C, Mosing M, Movsas B, Van Noorden CJ, Patrick DL, Pedersen NL, Ropka ME, Shi Q, Shinozaki G, Singh JA, Yang P, Zwinderman AH: The establishment of the GENEQOL consortium to investigate the genetic disposition of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Twin Res Hum Genet 2009, 12:301-311.
• [17]Wettergren L, Lindblad AK, Glimelius B, Ring L: Comparing two versions of the schedule for evaluation of individual quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Acta Oncol 2011, 50:648-652.
• [18]Drennan J: Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. J Adv Nurs 2003, 42:57-63.
• [19]Sjostrom B, Dahlgren LO: Applying phenomenography in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2002, 40:339-345.
• [20]Kvale S (Ed): Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage Publication; 1996.
• [21]Keyes CL, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD: Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002, 82:1007-1022.
• [22]Irvine KN, Warber SL: Greening healthcare: practicing as if the natural environment really mattered. Altern Ther Health Med 2002, 8:76-83.
• [23]Duijts SF, van Beurden M, Oldenburg HS, Hunter MS, Kieffer JM, Stuiver MM, Gerritsma MA, Menke-Pluymers MB, Plaisier PW, Rijna H, Lopes Cardozo AM, Timmers G, van der Meij S, van der Veen H, Bijker N, de Widt-Levert LM, Geenen MM, Heuff G, van Dulken EJ, Boven E, Aaronson NK: Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and physical exercise in alleviating treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in patients with breast cancer: results of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:4124-4133.
• [24]Wenzel LB, Donnelly JP, Fowler JM, Habbal R, Taylor TH, Aziz N, Cella D: Resilience, reflection, and residual stress in ovarian cancer survivorship: a gynecologic oncology group study. Psychooncology 2002, 11:142-153.
• [25]Carver CS: Enhancing adaptation during treatment and the role of individual differences. Cancer 2005, 104:2602-2607.
• [26]Ryff CD, Singer B: Psychological well-being: meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychother Psychosom 1996, 65:14-23.
• [27]Li S, Freund AM: Advances in lifespan psychology: a focus on biocultural and personal influences. Res Hum Dev 2005, 2:1-23.
• [28]Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF: Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 1999, 8:447-459.
• [29]Patton MQ (Ed): Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2002.
• [30]Wettergren L, Sprangers M, Bjorkholm M, Langius-Eklof A: Quality of life before and one year following stem cell transplantation using an individualized and a standardized instrument. Psychooncology 2008, 17:338-346.