Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses

Abstract

This study examined the usefulness of caregiver ratings of cancer patients' quality of life (QOL), an issue of relevance to both adequate patient care and to the possible use of proxy QOL raters in clinical studies. We compared QOL ratings of 90 cancer patients receiving inpatient chemotherapy with those provided by their significant others (most often the spouse), physicians and nurses. During patients' scheduled appointment for receiving chemotherapy on a clinical ward, all raters completed independently the Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Assessment charts/WONCA, an instrument developed by a cooperative group of primary care physicians to briefly assess a core set of seven QOL domains (physical fitness, feelings, daily and social activities, overall health, pain and quality of life) by single items with five response options. With few exceptions, mean scores of the proxy raters were equivalent or similar to those of the patients. Most patient-proxy correlations varied between 0.40 and 0.60, indicating a moderate level of agreement at the individual level. Of all comparisons made, 41% were in exact agreement and 43% agreed within one response category, leaving 17% more profound patient-proxy discrepancies. Disagreement was not dependent on the type of proxy rater, or on raters' background characteristics, but was influenced by the QOL dimension under consideration and the clinical status of the patient. Better patient-proxy agreement was observed for more concrete questions (daily activities, pain) and for patients with either a very good (ECOG 0) or poor (ECOG 3) performance status. The results indicate that both significant others and health care providers can be useful sources of information about cancer patients' QOL.

References 25

1. 1.

   Aaronson N. K. Methodologic issues in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Cancer. 1991;67(3 Suppl):844-850.

   Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19910201)67:3+<844::aid-cncr2820671416>3.0.co;2-b

2. 2.

   Au E., Loprinzi C. L., Dhodapkar M., Nelson T., Novotny P., Hammack J., O'Fallon J. Regular use of a verbal pain scale improves the understanding of oncology inpatient pain intensity. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(12):2751-2755.

   Not in our library10.1200/jco.1994.12.12.2751

3. 3.

   Blazeby J. M., Williams M. H., Alderson D., Farndon J. R. Observer variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 1995;82(9):1200-1203.

   Not in our library10.1002/bjs.1800820916

4. 4.

   Blehert S. R. Pattern discrimination learning with rhesus monkeys. Psychol Rep. 1966;19(1):311-324.

   Not in our library10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.311

5. 5.

   Detmar S. B., Aaronson N. K. Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(8):1181-1186.

   Not in our library10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00018-5

6. 6.
   Can oncologists detect distress in their out-patients and how satisfied are they with their performance during bad news consultations? · 1994

   No notice
7. 7.

   Hodgkins M., Albert D., Daltroy L. Comparing patients' and their physicians' assessments of pain. Pain. 1985;23(3):273-277.

   Not in our library10.1016/0304-3959(85)90105-8

8. 8.

   King M. T. The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 1996;5(6):555-567.

   Not in our library10.1007/bf00439229

9. 9.

   Kurtz M. E., Kurtz J. C., Given C. C., Given B. Concordance of cancer patient and caregiver symptom reports. Cancer Pract. 1996;4(4):185-190.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Macquart-Moulin G., Viens P., Bouscary M. L., Genre D., Resbeut M., Gravis G., Camerlo J., Maraninchi D., Moatti J. P. Discordance between physicians' estimations and breast cancer patients' self-assessment of side-effects of chemotherapy: an issue for quality of care. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(12):1640-1645.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.1997.610

12. 12.

    Magaziner J. Use of proxies to measure health and functional outcomes in effectiveness research in persons with Alzheimer disease and related disorders. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1997;11(Suppl 6):168-174.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Osoba D. Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(3):608-616.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1994.12.3.608

14. 14.

    Osoba D., Rodrigues G., Myles J., Zee B., Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139-144.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1998.16.1.139

15. 15.

    Schag C. C., Heinrich R. L., Ganz P. A. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2(3):187-193.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1984.2.3.187

16. 16.

    Sigurdardóttir V., Brandberg Y., Sullivan M. Criterion-based validation of the EORTC QLQ-C36 in advanced melanoma: the CIPS questionnaire and proxy raters. Qual Life Res. 1996;5(3):375-386.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00433922

17. 17.

    Siu A. L., Ouslander J. G., Osterweil D., Reuben D. B., Hays R. D. Change in self-reported functioning in older persons entering a residential care facility. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(10):1093-1101.

    Not in our library10.1016/0895-4356(93)90108-d

18. 18.
    Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? · 1988

    No notice
19. 19.

    Sneeuw K. C., Aaronson N. K., Osoba D., Muller M. J., Hsu M. A., Yung W. K., Brada M., Newlands E. S. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care. 1997;35(5):490-506.

    Not in our library10.1097/00005650-199705000-00006

20. 20.

    Sneeuw K. C., Aaronson N. K., Sprangers M. A., Detmar S. B., Wever L. D., Schornagel J. H. Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(7):617-631.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00040-7

21. 21.

    Sneeuw K. C., Aaronson N. K., Sprangers M. A., Detmar S. B., Wever L. D., Schornagel J. H. Value of caregiver ratings in evaluating the quality of life of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):1206-1217.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1997.15.3.1206

22. 22.

    Sneeuw K. C., Aaronson N. K., de Haan R. J., Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke. 1997;28(8):1541-1549.

    Not in our library10.1161/01.str.28.8.1541

23. 23.

    Sprangers M. A., Aaronson N. K. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(7):743-760.

    Not in our library10.1016/0895-4356(92)90052-o

24. 24.

    Stephens R. J., Hopwood P., Girling D. J., Machin D. Randomized trials with quality of life endpoints: are doctors' ratings of patients' physical symptoms interchangeable with patients' self-ratings? Qual Life Res. 1997;6(3):225-236.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1026458604826

25. 25.
    Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study · 1993

    No notice

Cited by papers we hold 2

• Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: A multicenter European study · 2010
  No notice
• Prognostic value of performance status assessed by patients themselves, nurses and oncologists in advanced non-small cell lung cancer · 2001
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.