Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Clinical
  • Published:

Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor–patient interactions in oncology

British Journal of Cancer volume 86, pages 51–59 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

It is well recognized that oncologists should consider patients' quality of life and functioning when planning and delivering anticancer treatment, but a comprehensive assessment of how a patient feels requires a thorough inquiry. A standardized measurement of patients' quality of life may support clinicians in identifying important problems for discussion during the limited time of the medical consultations. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of computer-administered individual quality of life measurements in oncology clinics with immediate feedback of results to clinicians and to examine the impact of the information on consultations. The study employed a prospective non-randomized design with pre-test post-test within subjects comparisons and involved three medical oncologists and 28 cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The intervention consisted of completion of quality of life questionnaires before the consultations and informing clinicians of the results. The main outcome measures were patients' perceptions of the content of baseline and intervention consultations and satisfaction with communication. A qualitative analysis of clinicians' interviews was performed. When clinicians had the quality of life results they enquired more often about daily activities (Z=−2.71, P=0.007), emotional problems (Z=−2.11, P=0.035) and work related issues (Z=−1.89, P=0.058). There was an increase in the number of issues discussed during the intervention consultation (Z=−1.89, P=0.059). Patients were highly satisfied with both consultations. The computer measurement was well accepted by patients who felt that the questionnaires were a useful tool to tell the doctors about their problems. The clinicians perceived that the quality of life data broadened the range of the clinical inquiry and helped them identify issues for discussion. Having symptoms and functional problems expressed quantitatively on a scale was useful for detection of change over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  • Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC (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: 365–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Sira Z (1980) Affective and instrumental components in the physician-patient relationship: an additional dimension of interaction theory. J Health Soc Behav 21: 170–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins DR, Rubenstein LV, Cleary PD, Davies AR, Jette AM, Fink A, Kosecoff J, Young RT, Brook RH, Delbanco TL (1991) Failure of physicians to recognize functional disability in ambulatory patients. Ann Intern Med 114: 451–454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins DR, Rubenstein LV, Cleary PD, Davies AR, Jette AM, Fink A, Kosecoff J, Young RT, Brook RH, Delbanco TL (1994) Functional disability screening of ambulatory patients: a randomized controlled trial in a hospital-based group practice. J Gen Intern Med 9: 590–592

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for behavioural sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  • Detmar SB, Aaronson NK (1998) Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. Eur J Cancer 34: 1181–1186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deyo RA, Patrick DL (1989) Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Med Care 27: S254–S268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fayers PM, Hopwood P, Harvey A, Girling DJ, Machin D, Stephens R (1997) Quality of life assessment in clinical trials-guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the UK Medical Research Council experience. Eur J Cancer 33: 20–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fayers P, Weeden S, Curran D on behalf of EORTC Quality of life Study Group (1998) EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values Internal publication Brussels: EORTC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick R (1991) Surveys of patients satisfaction: I-Important general considerations. BMJ 302: 887–889

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D (1992) Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ 305: 1074–1077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hall J, Dorman MC (1988) What patients like about their medical care and how often they are asked: a meta-analysis of the satisfaction literature. Soc Sci Med 27: 935–939

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Bjordal K, Kaasa S (1998) Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ=C30 (+ 3). J Clin Oncol 16: 1188–1196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kazis LE, Callahan LF, Meenan RF, Pincus T (1990) Health status reports in the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 43: 1243–1253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4: 293–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Early steps in analysis. InQualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Miles MB, Huberman AM (eds) pp 50–89, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Passik SD, Dugan W, McDonald MV, Rosenfeld B, Theobald DE, Edgerton S (1998) Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 1594–1600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein LV, McCoy JM, Cope DW, Barrett PA, Hirsch SH, Messer KS, Young RT (1995) Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. J Gen Intern Med 10: 607–614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sigle J, Porzsolt F (1996) Practical aspects of quality-of-life measurement: design and feasibility study of the quality-of-life recorder and the standardized measurement of quality of life in an outpatient clinic. Cancer Treat Rev 22: Suppl A 75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taenzer PA, Speca M, Atkinson MJ, Bultz BD, Page S, Harasym P, Davis JL (1997) Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Pract 5: 168–175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taenzer P, Bultz BD, Carlson LE, Speca M, DeGagne T, Olson K, Doll R, Rosberger Z (2000) Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychooncol 9: 203–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Till JE, Osoba D, Pater JL, Young JR (1994) Research on health-related quality of life: dissemination into practical applications. Qual Life Res 3: 279–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, Perren T, Stead M, Brown J, Selby PJ (1999) Automated collection of quality of life data: a comparison of paper and computer-touchscreen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 17: 998–1007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AK, Ehrenberg BL, Tran TA, Bungay KM, Cynn DJ, Rogers WH (1997) Patient-based health status measurement in clinical practice: a study of its impact on epilepsy patients' care. Qual Life Res 6: 329–341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett MA (1992) Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware Jr JE (1995) The status of health assessment. (1994) Ann Rev Publ Health 16: 327–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67: 361–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to our patients who took the time to complete the study questionnaires. We wish to thank Dr D Alison, Dr P Patel and Dr J Dent and the nursing and administrative staff in the clinics whose help and support made this study possible. We are grateful for financial support to the National Lotteries Charities Board (G Velikova), the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (G Velikova, AB Smith and PJ Selby) and NHS Research & Development (JM Brown). The automated collection of QL data was supported by a grant from the NHS National Cancer Research and Development Programme. Preliminary results of this work were presented at the 1999 6th annual conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research in Barcelona, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Medicine Research Unit, St James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

    G Velikova, A B Smith & P J Selby

  2. Northern and Yorkshire Clinical Trials and Research Unit, 17 Springfield Mount, Leeds, LS2 9NG, UK

    J M Brown

Authors
  1. G Velikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J M Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A B Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P J Selby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G Velikova.

Appendix 1 - Quality of life measurement in daily oncology practice: Patients’ Attitude Questionnaire

Appendix 1 - Quality of life measurement in daily oncology practice: Patients’ Attitude Questionnaire

You may remember when we first discussed with you the quality of life study that it would be helpful to have feedback from those who participated. This information will give us clearer idea about how acceptable and useful routine collection of quality of life data is to patients.

Please answer all of the questions by ticking the appropriate box. If you have any other comments about this study please write them in the space provided and the end of the questionnaire. Thank you for your help. Figure 3

Figure 1
figure 3

Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Velikova, G., Brown, J., Smith, A. et al. Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor–patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer 86, 51–59 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600001

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600001

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links