Top

Gepubliceerd in:

19-03-2024

Measuring reconceptualization and reprioritization during France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown in women with and without a history of cancer: an adaptation of the SeiQol-DW and PGI

Auteurs: Charlotte Bauquier, Stéphéline Ginguené, Tanguy Leroy, Marjolaine Doumergue, Natacha Lebrun, Claire Della Vecchia, Renaud Mabire-Yon, Sarah Leveaux, Luis Sagaon-Teyssier, Marie Préau

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2024

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to provide a better understanding of the patient-perceived effects of France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown on the quality of life (QoL) of women affected by cancer, and to test an ad hoc measurement scale for evaluating quasi-individualized QoL. QoL was measured for both during (i.e., current) and before (i.e., retrospectively) the lockdown. Respondents were women registered on the research platform Seintinelles.

Methods

A tool for measuring quasi-individualized QoL was adapted from the SeiQol-DW and PGI. It was distributed as part of a larger online self-questionnaire to a sample of 1303 women with a history of cancer (i.e., former or current) and with no such history.

Results

Current and retrospective QoL scores were not significantly different between the two respondent groups. An analysis of reconceptualization and reprioritization revealed a cancer-specific effect: women with a history of cancer reconceptualized more, while women with no such history reprioritized more.

Conclusion

Our novel ad hoc quasi-qualitative tool made it possible to assess the QoL of women with a history of cancer, a particularly vulnerable population in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, it highlighted a difference in reconceptualization and reprioritization between this population and women with no such history.

vorige artikel Understanding Canadian stakeholders’ views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study

volgende artikel Correction: Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Relationship with children, family; Health and well-being of loved ones; Relationships with friends; Personal well-being and morale; Personal physical health; Hobbies, passions, entertainment; Autonomy, freedom, independence; Sentimental and/or sexual life; Social and cultural life; Professional life; Redesigning living environment; Domestic activities; Animal health and welfare; Involvement in associations / charities; Spiritual and/or religious life.

The ‘distance’ is the difference between the weight (i.e., level of importance) assigned by the participant to life domain X during the first lockdown and the level assigned to the same life domain X for before the lockdown (i.e., retrospectively). We chose to use the term distance because we were not interested in the direction (i.e., positive or negative) of change, but simply whether or not there was a change between both measurements. For example, irrespective of whether life domain X was weighted with the value 7 in the ‘current’ QoL measurement, but only 5 for the ‘retrospective’ QoL measurement, or vice versa (i.e., net difference or + 2 or − 2, respectively), the number 2 would be used for the distance in both cases.

As a result of this decision, the scale for calculating distance was changed. The initial Likert scale ranged from 1 to 7. When the minimum weighting given by a respondent to a life domain was 1, the life domains not chosen were given a weighting of 0. Accordingly, the new scale for calculating distance went from 0 to 7. Accordingly, when calculating the reprioritization score, the distance for the life domains—irrespective of their number—never chosen by a respondent (i.e., neither for the ‘current’ nor ‘retrospective’ QoL measurements) was zero.

Fouques, D., Castro, D., Mouret, M., Julien-Sweerts, S., & Romo, L. (2021). Perceptions of the post first-lockdown era in the current covid-19 pandemic: Quantitative and qualitative survey of the French population. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 668961.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gultekin, M., Ak, S., Ayhan, A., Strojna, A., Pletnev, A., Fagotti, A., et al. (2021). Perspectives, fears and expectations of patients with gynaecological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A pan-European study of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups (ENGAGe). Cancer Medicine, 10, 208–219.CrossRefPubMed

Institut National du Cancer. (2020). Préconisations pour l’adaptation de l’offre de soins des établissements accueillant les patients atteints de cancer dans le contexte de l’épidémie de COVID-19.

You, B., Ravaud, A., Canivet, A., Ganem, G., Giraud, P., Guimbaud, R., et al. (2020). The official French guidelines to protect patients with cancer against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Lancet Oncology, 21, 619–621.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wettergren, L., Kettis-Lindblad, Å., Sprangers, M., & Ring, L. (2009). The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualised quality-of-life instrument: A systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 18, 737–746.CrossRefPubMed

Wettergren, L., Hedlund Lindberg, M., Kettis, Å., Glimelius, B., & Ring, L. (2014). Comparison of two instruments for measurement of quality of life in clinical practice—A qualitative study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The patient-generated index. Medical Care., 32, 1109–1126.CrossRefPubMed

McGee, H. M., O’Boyle, C. A., Hickey, A., O’Malley, K., & Joyce, C. R. B. (1991). Assessing the quality of life of the individual: The SEIQoL with a healthy and a gastroenterology unit population. Psychological Medicine, 21, 749–759.CrossRefPubMed

Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2019). Advancing quality-of-life research by deepening our understanding of response shift: A unifying theory of appraisal. Quality of Life Research, 28, 2623–2630.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2004). Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Vanier, A., Oort, F. J., McClimans, L., Ow, N., Gulek, B. G., Böhnke, J. R., et al. (2021). Response shift in patient-reported outcomes: Definition, theory, and a revised model. Quality of Life Research, 30, 3309–3322.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 1507–1515.CrossRef

13.

Sprangers, M. A. G., Sawatzky, R., Vanier, A., Böhnke, J. R., Sajobi, T., Mayo, N. E., et al. (2023). Implications of the syntheses on definition, theory, and methods conducted by the response shift—In Sync Working Group. Quality of Life Research, 32, 2165–2178.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Della Vecchia, C., Girodet, M., Ginguené, S., Carpentier, C., Leroy, T., Siméone, A., et al. (2022). At the heart of the COVID-19 crisis: Perceived concerns of changes in long-term cancer care in French women with cancer. European J Cancer Care., 31, e13599.CrossRef

15.

Pannard, M., Bauquier, C., Bassoleil, L., Sablone, L., Jacob, G., Reyal, F., et al. (2020). Ces citoyen(nes) qui se portent volontaires pour participer aux recherches dans le champ du cancer—résultats du Baromètre Seintinelles 2018. Bulletin du Cancer, 107, 333–343.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Dijkers, M. P. (2003). Individualization in quality of life measurement: Instruments and approaches. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation., 84, S3-14.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Botella, M., Zenasni, F., Pocard, M., Gledill, J., & Rodary, C. (2007). Adaptation française du Patient Generated Index: Qualités métrologiques et limites pratiques: French adaptation of the patient generated index: Metric characteristics and practical limitations. Psycho Oncologie, 1, 131–140.CrossRef

18.

Stone, P. C., Murphy, R. F., Matar, H. E., & Almerie, M. Q. (2008). Measuring the individual quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 11, 390–396.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the Propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRef

20.

Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

21.

Hahn, E. D., & Soyer, R. (2005). Probit and logit models: differences in the multivariate realm. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1–12.

22.

De Haes, J. C. J. M., & Van Knippenberg, F. C. E. (1985). The quality of life of cancer patients: A review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine., 20, 809–817.CrossRef

23.

Bargon, C., Batenburg, M., van Stam, L., van der Molen, D. M., van Dam, I., van der Leij, F., et al. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life, physical and psychosocial wellbeing in breast cancer patients—A prospective, multicenter cohort study. European Journal of Cancer, 138, S17.CrossRefPubMedCentral

24.

Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health and Illness, 4, 167–182.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Epifanio, M. S., Andrei, F., Mancini, G., Agostini, F., Piombo, M. A., Spicuzza, V., et al. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures on quality of life among Italian general population. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, 289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Poder, T., Dufresne, E., He, J., Talba, L., & Da Silva, R. B. (2021). Qualité de vie reliée à la santé et confinement: analyse des effets et des facteurs de risque. International Journal of Health Preference Research, 1, 2–26.

27.

Ahmed, S., Sawatzky, R., Levesque, J.-F., Ehrmann-Feldman, D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2014). Minimal evidence of response shift in the absence of a catalyst. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2421–2430.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ahmed, S., Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hanley, J. A., & Cohen, S. R. (2005). The structural equation modeling technique did not show a response shift, contrary to the results of the then test and the individualized approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1125–1133.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 239–249.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Measuring reconceptualization and reprioritization during France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown in women with and without a history of cancer: an adaptation of the SeiQol-DW and PGI
Auteurs: Charlotte Bauquier
Stéphéline Ginguené
Tanguy Leroy
Marjolaine Doumergue
Natacha Lebrun
Claire Della Vecchia
Renaud Mabire-Yon
Sarah Leveaux
Luis Sagaon-Teyssier
Marie Préau
Publicatiedatum: 19-03-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03626-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2024

Patient experiences in ulcerative colitis: conceptual model and review of patient-reported outcome measures

Power analyses for measurement model misspecification and response shift detection with structural equation modeling

Patient acceptable symptom state and treatment failure threshold values for work productivity and activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L in osteoarthritis

Correction: Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after

Sexual health in Belgian cervical cancer survivors: an exploratory qualitative study

Healthcare consumer acceptability of routine use of the EQ-5D-5L in clinical care: a cross-sectional survey