Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of reconceptualization response shift on rating of quality of life over time among people with advanced cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

People with cancer may experience change in what constitutes quality of life (QOL) over time as a result of the cancer progression (true change) or adaptation to the experience, considered as a response shift phenomenon. As individualized measures are ideally suited to explore response shift, this study aimed to estimate the extent to which reconceptualization response shift occurred over time in a cancer population and the impact of this response shift on estimates of change on QOL measures.

Methods

Ninety-seven people with advanced cancer completed the study measures including the Patient-Generated Index (PGI) at diagnosis (T0) and 1 year later (T1). The response shift indicator was the change in the number of areas nominated (range − 4 to + 3). Multivariate linear regression was used to estimate the effect of changing areas on change in the PGI score, single indicators of global QOL, and the EQ-5Dindex adjusted for age and sex.

Results

Approximately 72% of people in this sample either added or dropped areas over time. People who dropped more than two areas had higher PGI scores at T1 than T0 while people who added areas showed low PGI score.

Conclusion

The results are consistent with the PGI framework as areas nominated tend to focus on negative aspects of QOL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Joly F, McAlpine J, Nout R, Åvall-Lundqvist E, Shash E, Friedlander M, Gynaecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) (2014) Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in endometrial cancer clinical trials: a call for action! Int J Gynecol Cancer 24(9):1693–1699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heydarnejad MS, Hassanpour DA, Solati DK (2011) Factors affecting quality of life in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Afr Health Sci 11(2):266–270

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Helgesson O, Lissner L, Månsson J, Bengtsson C (2007) Quality of life in cancer survivors as observed in a population study of Swedish women. Scand J Prim Health Care 25(4):220–225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lindblad AK, Ring L, Glimelius B, Hansson MG (2002) Focus on the individual—quality of life assessments in oncology. Acta Oncol 41(6):507–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levine MN, Ganz PA (2002) Beyond the development of quality-of-life instruments: where do we go from here? J Clin Oncol 20(9):2215–2216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel KK, Veenstra DL, Patrick DL (2003) A review of selected patient-generated outcome measures and their application in clinical trials. Value Health 6(5):595–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, Haes JCJM, Kaasa S, Klee M, Osoba D, Razavi D, Rofe PB, Schraub S, Sneeuw K, Sullivan M, Takeda F (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. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cella D, Hernandez L, Bonomi AE, Corona M, Vaquero M, Shiomoto G, Baez L (1998) Spanish language translation and initial validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy quality-of-life instrument. Med Care 36(9):1407–1418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bowling A (1995) What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med 41(10):1447–1462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Soni MK, Cella D (2002) Quality of life and symptom measures in oncology: an overview. Am J Manag Care 8(18 Suppl):S560–S573

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aburub AS, Mayo NE (2017) A review of the application, feasibility, and the psychometric properties of the individualized measures in cancer. Qual Life Res 26(5):1091–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dabakuyo TS, Guillemin F, Conroy T, Velten M, Jolly D, Mercier M, Causeret S, Cuisenier J, Graesslin O, Gauthier M, Bonnetain F (2013) Response shift effects on measuring post-operative quality of life among breast cancer patients: a multicenter cohort study. Qual Life Res 22(1):1–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Naus MJ, Ishler MD, Parrott CE, Kovacs SA (2009) Cancer survivor adaptation model: conceptualizing cancer as a chronic illness. J Clin Psychol 65(12):1350–1359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE (1999) Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48(11):1507–1515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwartz CE, Rapkin BD (2004) Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sprangers MA (1996) Response-shift bias: a challenge to the assessment of patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rev 22(Suppl A):55–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahmed S, E. Mayo N, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley JA, Robin Cohen S (2004) Response shift influenced estimates of change in health-related quality of life poststroke. J Clin Epidemiol 57(6):561–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ubel PA, Peeters Y, Smith D (2010) Abandoning the language of “response shift”: a plea for conceptual clarity in distinguishing scale recalibration from true changes in quality of life. Qual Life Res 19(4):465–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barclay-Goddard R, Epstein JD, Mayo NE (2009) Response shift: a brief overview and proposed research priorities. Qual Life Res 18(3):335–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Camilleri-Brennan J, Ruta DA, Steele RJ (2002) Patient generated index: new instrument for measuring quality of life in patients with rectal cancer. World J Surg 26(11):1354–1359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tavernier SS, Beck SL, Clayton MF, Pett MA, Berry DL (2011) Validity of the Patient Generated Index as a quality-of-life measure in radiation oncology. Oncol Nurs Forum 38(3):319–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rodriguez AM, Mayo NE, Gagnon B (2013) Independent contributors to overall quality of life in people with advanced cancer. Br J Cancer 108(9):1790–1800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Aburub AS et al (2016) Using a personalized measure (Patient Generated Index (PGI)) to identify what matters to people with cancer. Support Care Cancer 24(1):437–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald L (1994) A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: the Patient-Generated Index. Med Care 32(11):1109–1126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2005) Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14(6):1523–1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K (1991) The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 7(2):6–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen SR, Mount BM (2000) Living with cancer: “good” days and “bad” days—what produces them? Can the McGill quality of life questionnaire distinguish between them? Cancer 89(8):1854–1865

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Strobel MG, Bui F (1995) The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire: a measure of quality of life appropriate for people with advanced disease. A preliminary study of validity and acceptability. Palliat Med 9(3):207–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Tomas JJN, Mount LF (1996) Existential well-being is an important determinant of quality of life. Evidence from the McGill quality of life questionnaire. Cancer 77(3):576–586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–1108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A (2012) Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One 7(2):e31115

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Oremus M, Tarride JE, Clayton N, Canadian Willingness-to-Pay Study Group, Raina P (2014) Health utility scores in Alzheimer’s disease: differences based on calculation with American and Canadian preference weights. Value Health 17(1):77–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005) US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43(3):203–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Poissant L, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Clarke AE (2003) The development and preliminary validation of a Preference-Based Stroke Index (PBSI). Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:43

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Arcuri JF, Borghi-Silva A, Labadessa IG, Sentanin AC, Candolo C, Pires di Lorenzo VA (2016) Validity and reliability of the 6-minute step test in healthy individuals: a cross-sectional study. Clin J Sport Med 26(1):69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Guerra-Balic M, Oviedo GR, Javierre C, Fortuño J, Barnet-López S, Niño O, Alamo J, Fernhall B (2015) Reliability and validity of the 6-min walk test in adults and seniors with intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 47:144–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schmidt K, Vogt L, Thiel C, Jäger E, Banzer W (2013) Validity of the six-minute walk test in cancer patients. Int J Sports Med 34(7):631–636

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Middleton A, Fritz SL, Lusardi M (2015) Walking speed: the functional vital sign. J Aging Phys Act 23(2):314–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fritz S, Lusardi M (2009) White paper: “walking speed: the sixth vital sign”. J Geriatr Phys Ther 32(2):46–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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. Qual Life Res 16(4):705–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cummins R (2000) Personal income and subjective well-being: a review. J Happiness Stud 1:133–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley JA, Cohen SR (2005) Using the patient generated index to evaluate response shift post-stroke. Qual Life Res 14(10):2247–2257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Howard GS, Dailey P (1979) Response-shift bias: a source of contamination of self-report measures. J Appl Psychol 64:144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mayo NE, Aburub A’, Brouillette MJ, Kuspinar A, Moriello C, Rodriguez AM, Scott S (2017) In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions. Qual Life Res 26(3):601–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Terry Fox Research Institute and by the Cancer Research Society/Rob Lutterman Pancreatic Cancer Research Grant. B Gagnon is a recipient of “Chercheur-clinicien Boursier” award from Fond de Recherche Santé Québec, Québec, Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital Site, McGill University, Ross Pavilion R4.29, 687, Pine Ave W., Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada

    Ala’ S. Aburub

  2. Département de médecine familiale et de médecine d’urgence, Centre de Recherche sur le Cancer, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Universite Laval, 9 rue McMahon, Québec, QC, G1R 2J6, Canada

    B. Gagnon

  3. School of Physical and Occupation Therapy, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire réadaptation (CRIR) constance Lethbridge rehabilitaion Center, McGill University Health Centre, 3654 prom Sir-William-Osler, Montreal, QC, H3G 1Y5, Canada

    S. Ahmed

  4. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McGill University, 3654 Prom Sir-William-Osler, Montreal, QC, H3G 1Y5, Canada

    A. M. Rodríguez

  5. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital Site, McGill University Health Center, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada

    Nancy E. Mayo

Authors
  1. Ala’ S. Aburub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Gagnon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. M. Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nancy E. Mayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ala’ S. Aburub.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aburub, A.S., Gagnon, B., Ahmed, S. et al. Impact of reconceptualization response shift on rating of quality of life over time among people with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 26, 3063–3071 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4156-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4156-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation