Effect of method of administration on longitudinal assessment of quality of life in gynecologic cancer: An exploratory study

被引：5

作者：

Gil K.M. ^{[1
,2
]}

Frasure H.E. ^{[3
]}

Hopkins M.P. ^{[2
]}

Jenison E.L. ^{[1
,2
]}

von Gruenigen V.E. ^{[2
,3
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH

[2] Northeastern Ohio Universities, College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH

[3] Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH

来源：

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | / 3卷 / 1期

关键词：

Ovarian Cancer; Endometrial Cancer; Paper Version; Computer Version; High Baseline Score;

D O I：

10.1186/1477-7525-3-6

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Longitudinal assessments of quality of life are needed to measure changes over the course of a disease and treatment. Computer versions of quality of life instruments have increased the feasibility of obtaining longitudinal measurements. However, there remain occasions when patients are not able to complete these questionnaires. This study examined whether changes measured using a computer version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) on two occasions would be obtained if patients completed a paper version on one of the two occasions. Methods: Gynecologic oncology patients completed a computer version of the FACT-G preoperatively and at six months. Patients were given the option of using the paper version instead of the computer at either time point. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used. Results: One hundred nineteen patients completed the FACT-G at both time points. Seventy-one (60%) patients used the computer at both visits, 26 (21.8%) used the computer followed by the paper version, 17 (14.3%) used the paper version followed by the computer version, and five patients (4.2%) used the paper version at both visits. Significant effects over time were obtained in the physical, functional, and emotional well-being domains, and in total scores, but there were no effects of method of administration of the questionnaires and no interaction between method of administration and changes over time. Conclusions: These data indicate that women are responding to the content of the questionnaire and not method of data collection. Although using the same method of administration of instruments over time is desirable, using alternate methods is preferable to forgoing data collection entirely. Large scale studies should be conducted to determine if the multiple methods of data collection that are becoming increasingly available are producing interchangeable information. © 2005 Gil et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

页数：8

共 21 条

[1]

Schwartz C.E., Sprangers M.A., An introduction to quality of life assessment in oncology: The value of measuring patient-reported outcomes, Am. J. Manag. Care, (2002)

[2]

Boling W., Fouladi R.T., Basen-Engquist K., Health-related quality of life in gynecological oncology: Instruments and psychometric properties, Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 13, pp. 5-14, (2003)

[3]

Osoba D., What has been learned from measuring health-related quality of life in clinical oncology, Eur. J. Cancer, 35, pp. 1565-1570, (1999)

[4]

Cella D.F., Tulsky D.S., Gray G., Sarafian B., Linn E., Bonomi A., Silberman M., Yellen S.B., Winicour P., Brannon J., The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure, J. Clin. Oncol., 11, pp. 570-579, (1993)

[5]

Basen-Engquist K., Bodurka-Bevers D., Fitzgerald M.A., Webster K., Cella D., Hu S., Gershenson D.M., Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian, J. Clin. Oncol., 19, pp. 1809-1817, (2001)

[6]

Aaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., Bullinger M., Cull A., Duez N.J., Filiberti A., Flechtner H., Fleishman S.B., de Haes J.C., The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 85, pp. 365-376, (1993)

[7]

Kemmler G., Holzner B., Kopp M., Dunser M., Margreiter R., Greil R., Sperner-Unterweger B., 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, J. Clin. Oncol., 17, pp. 2932-2940, (1999)

[8]

Detmar S.B., Muller M.J., Schornagel J.H., Wever L.D., Aaronson N.K., Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: A randomized controlled trial, JAMA, 288, pp. 3027-3034, (2002)

[9]

Taenzer P., Bultz B.D., Carlson L.E., Speca M., DeGagne T., Olson K., Doll R., Rosberger Z., Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients, Psychooncology, 9, pp. 203-213, (2000)

[10]

Velikova G., Brown J.M., Smith A.B., Selby P.J., Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology, Br. J. Cancer, 86, pp. 51-59, (2002)

← 1 2 3 →