Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2015

01-05-2015

Identifying changes in scores on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 representing a change in patients’ supportive care needs

Auteurs: Claire F. Snyder, Amanda L. Blackford, Jonathan Sussman, Daryl Bainbridge, Doris Howell, Hsien Y. Seow, Michael A. Carducci, Albert W. Wu

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Using health-related quality-of-life measures for patient management requires knowing what changes in scores require clinical attention. We estimated changes on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life-Questionnaire-Core-30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30), representing important changes by comparing to patient-reported changes in supportive care needs.

Methods

This secondary analysis used data from 193 newly diagnosed cancer patients (63 % breast, 37 % colorectal; mean age 60 years; 20 % male) from 28 Canadian surgical practices. Participants completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34) and EORTC-QLQ-C30 at baseline, 3, and 8 weeks. We calculated mean changes in EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores associated with improvement, worsening, and no change in supportive care needs based on the SCNS-SF34. Mean changes in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores associated with the SCNS-SF34 improved and worsened categories were used to estimate clinically important changes, and the ‘no change’ category to estimate insignificant changes.

Results

EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes ranged from 6 to 32 points for patients reporting improved supportive care needs; statistically significant changes were 10–32 points. EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes ranged from 21-point worsening to 21-point improvement for patients reporting worsening supportive care needs; statistically significant changes were 9–21 points in the hypothesized direction and a 21-point statistically significant change in the opposite direction. EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes ranged from a 1-point worsening to 16-point improvement for patients reporting stable supportive care needs.

Conclusion

These data suggest 10-point EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes represent changes in supportive care needs. When using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice, scores changing ≥10 points should be highlighted for clinical attention.
vorige artikel “A gift wrapped in barbed wire” Positive and negative life changes after being diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease
volgende artikel Predicting participation in meaningful activity for older adults with cancer
Literatuur
1.
Snyder, C. F., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. The Lancet, 374, 369–370. CrossRef
2.
Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18, 115–123. CrossRefPubMed
3.
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., 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, 714–724. CrossRefPubMed
4.
Berry, D. L., Blumenstein, B. A., Halpenny, B., et al. (2011). Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: A randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, 1029–1035. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
5.
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D. V., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034. CrossRefPubMed
6.
Greenhalgh, J., & Meadows, K. (1999). The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 401–416. CrossRefPubMed
7.
Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: A structured review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12, 559–568. CrossRefPubMed
8.
Haywood, K., Marshall, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Patient participation in the consultation process: A structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 12–23. CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cleeland, C. S., Wang, X. S., Shi, Q., et al. (2011). Automated symptom alerts reduce postoperative symptom severity after cancer surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, 994–1000. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
10.
McLachlan, S.-A., Allenby, A., Matthews, J., et al. (2001). Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 4117–4125. PubMed
11.
Snyder, C. F., Blackford, A. L., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2011). Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients’ most bothersome issues? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29, 1216–1220. CrossRefPubMed
12.
Snyder, C. F., Blackford, A. L., Wolff, A. C., et al. (2013). Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: A web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 895–901. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
13.
Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C. F., Abernethy, A. P., et al. (2013). A review of electronic patient reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10, e215–e222.
14.
Brundage, M. D., Bantug, E. T., Little, E. A., Smith, K. A., Snyder, C. F., PRO data presentation stakeholder advisory board. (2014). Which formats for communicating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) work best? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 5s (suppl; abstr 6616).
15.
Snyder, C. F., Blackford, A. L., Brahmer, J. R., et al. (2010). Needs assessments can identify scores on HRQOL questionnaires that represent problems for patients: an illustration with the Supportive Care Needs Survey and the QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 19, 837–845. CrossRefPubMed
16.
Snyder, C. F., Blackford, A. L., Okuyama, T., et al. (2013). Using the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: Identifying scores requiring a clinician’s attention. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2685–2691. CrossRefPubMed
17.
Snyder, C. F., Dy, S. M., Hendricks, D. E., et al. (2007). Asking the right questions: Investigating needs assessments and health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in oncology clinical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 15, 1075–1085. CrossRefPubMed
18.
Sussman, J., Howell, D., Bainbridge, D., et al. (2012). Results of a cluster randomized trial to evaluate a nursing lead supportive care intervention in newly diagnosed breast and colorectal cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30 (suppl), Abstract 6035.
19.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., 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. CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. (Eds.). (2005). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Snyder, C. F., Herman, J. M., White, S. M., et al. (2014). When using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice, the measure matters: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10, e299–e306. CrossRefPubMed
22.
Bonevski, B., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Girgis, A., et al. (2000). Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Cancer, 88, 217–225. CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sanson-Fisher, R., Girgis, A., Boyes, A., et al. (2000). The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Cancer, 88, 226–237. CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1305–1314. CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415. CrossRefPubMed
28.
Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 139–144. PubMed
29.
King, M. T. (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 5, 555–567. CrossRefPubMed
30.
Maringwa, J. T., Quinten, C., King, M., et al. (2011). Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19, 1753–1760. CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ahmed, S., Schwartz, C., Ring, L., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2009). Applications of health-related quality of life for guiding health care: Advances in response shift research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1115–1117. CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kvam, A. K., Wisloff, F., & Fayers, P. M. (2010). Minimal important differences and response shift in health-related quality of life; a longitudinal study in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 79. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Identifying changes in scores on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 representing a change in patients’ supportive care needs
Auteurs
Claire F. Snyder
Amanda L. Blackford
Jonathan Sussman
Daryl Bainbridge
Doris Howell
Hsien Y. Seow
Michael A. Carducci
Albert W. Wu
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0853-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Quality of Life Research 5/2015 Naar de uitgave

Patient Engagement Special Section

Engaging stakeholders to develop a depression management decision support tool in a tribal health system

Patient Engagement Special Section

Patient and public engagement in health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research: what is important and why should we care? Findings from the first ISOQOL patient engagement symposium

OriginalPaper

Measuring caregiver outcomes in palliative care: a construct validation study of two instruments for use in economic evaluations

Patient Engagement Special Section

Beyond lip service and box ticking: how effective patient engagement is integral to the development and delivery of patient-reported outcomes

Editorial

Introduction to special section on patient engagement

Patient Engagement Special Section

Obese subjects involvement in a population-based survey: the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to avoid stigmatization

Version: 0.2155.0