Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

Open Access 09-04-2023

Updated normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general Dutch population by age and sex: a cross-sectional panel research study

Auteurs: K. M. de Ligt, N. K. Aaronson, G. Liegl, S. Nolte, the EORTC Quality of Life Group

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2023

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
insite
ZOEKEN

Abstract

Purpose

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is a validated and widely-used Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for measuring the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of cancer patients. To facilitate interpretation of results obtained in studies using the EORTC QLQ-C30, we generated normative data for the Dutch general population, stratified by age and sex.

Methods

Dutch participants were selected from a larger cross-sectional online panel research study collecting EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data across 15 countries. EORTC QLQ-C30 raw scores based on a 4-point response scale were transformed to linear scores ranging from 0 to 100. Transformed scores were weighted based on the United Nations population distribution statistics and presented by age and sex/age. Differences in scale scores of ≥ 10 points in HRQoL were applied to indicate clinical relevance.

Results

One thousand respondents completed the online survey. Stratified by age, clinically meaningful differences were observed, with worse physical functioning scores and better emotional functioning scores with increased age. Symptom scores remained stable across age groups, except for small age differences observed for fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Stratified by sex/age, men generally scored better for both functioning and symptoms. However, these differences were not clinically meaningful.

Conclusions

These updated normative EORTC QLQ-C30 for the Dutch general population can be used to better interpret HRQoL data obtained from Dutch cancer patients. Being part of a larger international study, these data can further be used for inter-country comparisons in multi-national studies.
Opmerkingen

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Plain language summary

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients to measure their quality of life. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, is a questionnaire widely used for cancer patients. To help interpret the scores that result from this questionnaire, scores can be compared with the scores from the general population, so-called normative scores. This study generated updated EORTC QLQ-C30 data for the Dutch general population that had been collected as part of a large European Norm Data project. This is important, because national normative data allows for more meaningful interpretation of scores within a specific country. Scores are presented separately for men and women, and for different age groups. We found that with increasing age, worse physical but better emotional functioning was reported. Men generally reported better functioning and fewer symptoms compared to women. The normative EORTC QLQ-C30 data for the Dutch general population can be used to better interpret data obtained from Dutch cancer patients.

Background

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), designed to quantify patients’ experiences with disease and treatment, have been increasingly applied in oncology trials and observational studies over the past decades [1]. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, is a validated PROM available in many languages. The EORTC QLQ-C30 assesses 15 domains of functional health and symptoms commonly experienced by cancer patients [2]. It is widely used in clinical trials and as part of clinical research [3]. Nowadays, PROMs are also increasingly integrated into daily clinical practice for assessing and managing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individual patients [4, 5], following the paradigm shift to patient-centred healthcare [5, 6]. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) recommends the adoption of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice, for example, for patients with breast [7], lung [8], advanced prostate [9], and colorectal cancer [10].
An important strategy to aid in the interpretation of cancer patients’ HRQoL is to compare these with general population scores, so-called normative data [11]. In 2017, normative data for the original EORTC QLQ-C30 and its computer-adaptive test version (EORTC CAT Core [12]) were systematically collected via an online research panel in the general populations of 11 European Union (EU) countries, and Russia, Turkey, Canada, and the United States in a large international study [13, 14]. To date, this has resulted in two core publications [13], 14 and separate national norm data papers for the German [15], Austrian [16], Spanish [17] and Italian [18] general populations, respectively. For studies conducted at the local or national level, it is important to have country-specific normative data available, because normative data can vary between countries and cultures [13]. Thus, national normative data allows for more meaningful score interpretation within a specific country.
Van de Poll-Franse et al. [19] published Dutch EORTC QLQ-C30 data for the general population based on a 2009 survey of 1700 individuals. Subsequently, Mols et al. [20] carried out five consecutive annual assessments (2009–2013) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in 1700–2400 individuals from the Dutch general population. However, these studies were not conducted in line with other international general population studies. To enable inter-country comparison, the aim of the present study was to generate and describe updated EORTC QLQ-C30 data for the Dutch general population, based on the 2017 EORTC international online survey that employed a uniform sampling strategy across participating countries [13, 14]. Results were stratified by age and sex, both having a distinct impact on HRQoL [21, 22]. These updated normative data will facilitate the interpretation of HRQoL data within the Netherlands, and their comparison with data obtained in other countries.

Materials and methods

Sampling and setting

Dutch general population data were retrieved from an international online cross-sectional study undertaken in March/April 2017, in which participants completed a survey about HRQoL; for further details on the data collection methods, please see Nolte et al. [13] and Liegl et al. [14]. In ten strata based on sex and age group (male/female; 18–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, ≥70 years), an equal number of participants was recruited to meet the recruitment quota (anticipated sample size: n = 100/stratum). Participants were voluntary online panel members who gave consent to participate in panel-based studies. Data were collected by the panel research company GfK SE (https://​www.​gfk.​com/​). For a given country, panels are representative for the general population with internet access based on criteria including age, sex, education, household size, city size, and geographical location. Response rates to panel studies conducted by GfK are generally between 75 and 90% [13].

Measures

Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that, among other data (for details, see Liegl et al. [14]) contained the following:
1.
The EORTC QLQ-C30 [2]: 30 items measuring 15 scales: functioning (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), symptoms (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties) and global HRQoL. Response options were on a 4-point Likert-type scale (not at all; a little; quite a bit; very much) and a 7-point Likert scale for global HRQoL ranging from ‘Very poor’ to ‘Excellent’. The recall period was the previous week, with the exception of the physical functioning scale that refers to the current situation. Participants completed the Dutch version of the EORTC QLQ-C30, which has been shown to be reliable and valid for use in the Netherlands [2]. Following standard scoring procedures, raw scores are transformed linearly to scale scores ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better global HRQoL and functioning, but worse symptom experience [23];
 
2.
Sociodemographic items, including sex, age, educational level, employment status, relationship status, and prevalence of health conditions.
 

Statistical analyses

The purpose of collecting norm data from the general population is to guide interpretation of HRQoL data obtained from cancer patients [11]. Therefore, we provide look-up tables where the norm data are presented descriptively, further stratified by age and sex. Differences of ≥ 10 points were considered clinically relevant [28]. In those cases where clinically meaningful group differences by age and/or sex were found, we further calculated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) to better understand the size of detected differences. First, sociodemographic data and EORTC QLQ-C30 mean scale scores and standard deviations (SD) were described. The EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score, available since 2016, was the mean of all EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores (excluding global QoL and financial difficulties); the Summary score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better HRQoL [24]. It has a strong prognostic value for overall survival for cancer populations, and additional value beyond traditional clinical and sociodemographic variables [25].
Second, to achieve norm scores to be representative for the Dutch general population, mean scale scores were weighted by the sex and age distribution of the adult Dutch population [26], using the 2015 population distribution statistics published by the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division [27]. The sample was not weighted for health conditions because such information was not available. Of note, akin to the other norm data papers [1518], we further divided the youngest age group (18–39 years) into two groups, i.e., 18–29 years and 30–39 years. All analyses were performed in Stata/SE 14.2 [29].

Results

Sample population

Unweighted and weighted sample population characteristics are presented in Table 1, with unweighted data presented here. The sample consisted of 499 men and 501 women (N = 1000). Their mean age was 54.0 years (SD: 15.3 years), 42% completed university or a post-graduate degree, and 73% were married or in a stable relationship. Thirty percent were employed full-time, 19% part-time and 31% were retired. Half of them reported having at least one health condition. The most frequently reported health conditions were chronic pain (15%), arthritis (10%), diabetes (8%), and heart disease (6%); 2.3% reported a diagnosis of cancer.
Table 1
Sample characteristics (N = 1000), unweighted and weighted data
 
Unweighted dataa
Weighted dataa,b
Full sample (N = 1000)
Males (n = 499)
Female (n = 501)
Full sample (n = 1000)
Males (n = 493.8)
Female (n = 506.2)
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Age (years)
Mean (SD)
54.0
(15.3)
54.4
(15.1)
(53.6)
(15.6)
47.9
(17.2)
47.4
(17.0)
48.3
(17.4)
Categories (in years)
18–29
74
7.4
30
6.0
44
8.8
222.6
22.3
113.4
23.0
109.2
21.6
30–39
124
12.4
68
13.6
56
11.2
143.0
14.3
72.0
14.6
71.0
14.0
40–49
200
20.0
100
20.0
100
20.0
172.7
17.3
86.6
17.5
86.1
17.0
50–59
201
20.1
100
20.0
101
20.2
172.1
17.2
86.9
17.6
85.2
16.8
60–69
200
20.0
100
20.0
100
20.0
146.9
14.7
73.1
14.8
73.9
14.6
70+
201
20.1
101
20.2
100
20.0
142.7
14.3
61.8
12.5
80.9
16.0
Education
Less than compulsory education
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Compulsory (left school at the minimum school leaving age)
12
1.2
7
1.4
5
1.0
11.5
1.2
5.7
1.2
5.8
5.8
Some post compulsory (some school after reaching school leaving age without reaching university entrance qualifications
108
10.9
39
7.9
69
13.9
103.8
10.5
39.9
8.1
63.9
12.7
Post compulsory below university (e.g. reaching A levels)
451
45.5
221
44.7
230
46.4
431.1
43.5
214.1
43.7
217.0
43.2
University degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent level)
303
30.6
163
33.0
140
28.2
302.3
30.5
157.1
32.1
145.2
28.9
Postgraduate degree (Master’s, Doctorate or equivalent level)
116
11.7
64
13.0
52
10.5
143.0
14.4
73.1
14.9
70.0
14.0
Prefer not to answerc
10
5
5
8.3
3.9
4.4
Marital status
Single/not in a steady relationship
180
18.1
81
16.4
99
19.9
229.2
23.1
111.2
22.8
118.0
23.5
Married or in a steady relationship
727
73.2
389
78.6
338
67.9
693.2
70.0
357.4
73.3
335.8
66.7
Separated/divorced/widowed
86
8.7
25
5.1
61
12.2
68.4
6.9
19.0
19.0
49.5
9.8
Prefer not to answerc
7
4
3
9.2
6.3
2.9
Employment status
Employed full-time
294
29.6
217
43.7
77
15.5
339.9
34.2
245.5
49.9
94.4
18.8
Employed part-time
186
18.7
41
8.2
145
29.2
198.5
20.0
50.3
10.2
148.2
29.5
Homemaker
32
3.2
1
0.2
31
 
28.9
2.9
1.1
0.2
27.9
5.6
Student
23
2.3
5
1.0
18
3.6
60.7
6.1
18.9
3.8
41.8
8.3
Unemployed
60
6.0
28
5.6
32
6.5
60.9
6.1
29.2
5.9
31.7
6.3
Retired
308
31.0
158
31.8
150
30.2
222.2
22.4
104.6
21.3
117.6
23.4
Self-employed
41
4.1
27
5.4
14
2.8
37.7
3.8
25.4
5.2
12.3
2.5
Other (please specify)
49
4.9
20
4.0
29
5.8
45.3
4.6
17.1
3.5
28.2
5.6
Prefer not to answerc
7
2
5
5.7
1.7
4.0
Health status
I have no health condition/disease
479
47.9
265
53.1
214
42.7
518.7
51.9
286.8
58.1
231.8
45.8
At least one health conditiond
521
52.1
234
46.9
287
57.3
481.3
48.1
207.0
41.9
274.4
54.2
 Chronic pain (for example, low back pain, neck pain)
139
14.5
53
11.0
86
18.0
129.0
13.4
48.1
10.1
80.8
16.7
 Heart disease (for example, coronary heart disease, heart attack, heart failure)
54
5.6
40
8.3
14
2.9
41.1
4.17
28.3
5.9
12.7
2.6
 Cancer (excluding basal cell carcinoma)
22
2.3
10
2.0
12
2.5
16.4
1.7
6.9
1.5
9.5
2.0
 Depression
36
3.7
18
3.7
18
3.8
42.7
4.4
23.8
5.0
18.9
3.9
 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
41
4.3
24
4.9
17
3.5
30.2
3.1
16.7
3.5
13.5
2.8
 Arthritis (for example, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis)
97
10.1
31
6.4
66
13.8
75.9
7.9
23.7
5.0
52.2
10.8
 Diabetes
80
8.3
41
8.5
39
8.1
62.4
6.5
29.6
6.2
32.8
6.8
 Asthma
52
5.4
21
4.3
31
6.5
57.4
6.0
21.0
4.4
36.4
7.5
 Anxiety disorder
19
2.0
9
1.9
10
2.1
24.5
2.6
13.7
2.9
10.7
2.2
 Obesity
28
2.9
8
1.7
20
4.2
27.4
2.9
7.0
1.5
20.4
4.2
 Drug/alcohol use disorder
3
0.3
0
0
3
0.6
2.9
0.3
0
0.0
2.9
0.6
 Other
148
15.4
61
12.7
87
18.2
139.1
14.5
50.4
10.6
88.7
18.3
Prefer not to answerc
40
18
22
40
18
22
M mean, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range
aUnless stated otherwise, the numbers refer to sample size (n) and percentage (%)
bMean scale scores were weighted by the sex and age distribution of the adult Dutch population, using the 2015 population distribution statistics published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division
cFor calculating percentages, the category “prefer not to answer” was excluded from the denominator
dThe sum of all health conditions is larger than the sample size as respondents could choose multiple response options
Weighting the population altered the age distribution slightly with more respondents in younger age categories, because the 18–39 years age group had a larger range compared to the 10-year range for the other age groups.

EORTC QLQ-C30 scores

Weighted and unweighted EORTC QLQ-C30 scores are presented in Table 2. The weighing of data led to changes in scores ranging from -1.9 (emotional functioning) to +1.4 (fatigue).
Table 2
EORTC QLQ-C30 scores for the Dutch general population, weighted and unweighted scores
 
Unweighted data
Weighted dataa
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Global health/HRQoL
78.4
19.1
77.4
19.8
Functioning scales
Physical
89.7
15.5
90.7
14.9
Role
88.5
21.9
89.1
21.5
Emotional
84.2
19.2
82.3
21.2
Cognitive
90.4
16.1
90.3
17.1
Social
92.3
18.0
91.9
19.0
Symptom scales
Fatigue
22.3
22.6
23.7
23.0
Nausea/vomiting
2.9
10.4
3.5
11.8
Pain
17.9
23.1
17.7
22.9
Dyspnoea
10.0
20.4
9.5
19.7
Insomnia
21.6
26.2
21.3
26.1
Appetite loss
4.9
15.2
4.9
15.1
Constipation
5.0
13.6
4.9
13.6
Diarrhoea
6.2
16.9
6.9
17.8
Financial difficulties
4.6
15.8
4.9
17.1
Summary score
88.8
11.9
88.6
12.1
aMean scale scores were weighted by the sex and age distribution of the adult Dutch population, using the 2015 population distribution statistics published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division
Weighted mean and SD for global health were 77.4 ± 19.8. Functioning scores ranged between 82.3 ± 21.2 for emotional functioning and 91.9 ± 19.0 for social functioning. Symptom scores ranged between 3.5 ± 11.8 for nausea/vomiting and 23.7 ± 23.0 for fatigue. For several symptom subscales (nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea), floor effects were observed, as > 80% selected the best score. The weighted mean EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score was 88.6 ± 12.1.

EORTC QLQ-C30 scores by age

Weighted EORTC QLQ-C30 scores stratified by age are presented in Table 3. Physical functioning was worse with increasing age (age 18–29 years: 93.9; age 70+ years: 84.9, Cohen’s d: = 0.65), although not clinically meaningful, while emotional functioning was better (clinically meaningful) with increasing age (age 18–29 years: 74.9; age 70+ years: 90.1, Cohen’s d = 0.67). Differences in other functioning scale scores were not clinically meaningful and relatively stable across age groups (Table 3). Most symptom scores remained stable across age groups. However, fatigue scores were worst in the youngest age group (age 18–29 years: 29.4), indicating a clinically meaningful difference between the youngest and the oldest age group (age 70+ years: 17.1, Cohen’s d = 0.56).
Table 3
Weighted EORTC QLQ-C30 scoresa for the Dutch general population stratified by age category (in years; men and women combined)
 
Full sample
18–29 years
30–39 years
40–49 years
50–59 years
60–69 years
70+ years
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Global health/quality of life
77.4
19.8
73.4
22.0
75.5
20.7
76.6
20.9
79.4
16.6
78.6
19.5
83.1
16.1
Functioning scales
Physical
90.7
14.9
93.9
11.4
93.7
12.5
91.6
15.9
91.0
14.3
87.0
16.7
84.9
16.8
Role
89.1
21.5
92.1
19.3
89.6
22.7
88.1
23.9
88.5
21.0
86.7
22.6
88.6
19.8
Emotional
82.3
21.2
74.9
27.1
79.3
21.4
82.4
21.2
83.4
17.1
87.3
17.0
90.1
13.5
Cognitive
90.3
17.1
89.0
21.3
90.3
18.3
90.1
17.5
90.9
15.7
91.3
13.4
90.5
12.9
Social
91.9
19.0
90.1
22.2
91.6
20.4
90.8
20.4
94.0
15.4
92.2
16.8
93.4
16.1
Symptom scales
Fatigue
23.7
23.0
29.4
24.5
26.2
23.3
25.3
24.8
21.5
20.4
20.1
22.8
17.1
18.7
Nausea/vomiting
3.5
11.8
6.4
17.1
4.31
12.4
2.5
7.8
2.3
9.1
2.5
9.7
2.1
9.4
Pain
17.7
22.9
16.7
21.5
15.7
22.1
16.5
24.2
21.0
23.5
20.7
24.7
15.5
21.1
Dyspnoea
9.5
19.7
7.6
15.7
10.3
24.5
7.3
17.4
9.6
18.1
13.2
23.9
10.7
19.5
Insomnia
21.3
26.1
18.9
25.0
22.1
24.6
22.1
29.0
23.6
27.2
22.2
25.8
19.3
24.2
Appetite loss
4.9
15.1
5.3
14.9
5.4
15.4
4.8
15.8
3.6
13.2
4.8
14.4
5.7
16.8
Constipation
4.9
13.6
4.7
13.6
4.8
14.4
4.2
12.5
4.9
12.8
5.0
13.7
6.3
15.1
Diarrhoea
6.9
17.8
9.3
20.6
9.5
21.0
6.0
16.3
4.6
14.1
6.3
17.2
4.7
15.0
Financial difficulties
4.9
17.1
6.7
22.2
5.4
19.2
3.8
13.4
5.3
15.4
4.7
16.1
2.8
11.8
Summary score
88.6
12.1
87.8
12.4
88.2
13.7
88.8
13.5
89.0
10.7
88.4
11.8
89.7
10.0
aMean scale scores were weighted by the sex and age distribution of the adult Dutch population, using the 2015 population distribution statistics published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division
Mean Global HRQoL was better with increasing age (age 18–29 years: 73.4; age 70+ years: 83.1, although not clinically meaningful, Cohen’s d = 0.49), while the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score was relatively stable across age categories (age 18–29 years: 87.8; age 70+ years: 89.7, Cohen’s d = 0.16).

EORTC QLQ-C30 scores by sex and age

Scores stratified by age and sex are presented in Table 4 (men) and Table 5 (women). Generally, men had slightly more favourable scores compared to women: physical (men: 92.8, women: 88.6, Cohen’s d = 0.29), role (men: 90.7, women: 87.6, Cohen’s d = 0.14), social (men: 93.2, women: 90.7, Cohen’s d = 0.13), and emotional (men: 84.4, women: 80.2, Cohen’s d = 0.20) functioning, and global health (men: 79.3, women: 75.6, Cohen’s d = 0.19) were 3–4 points higher in men. Men reported more favourable symptom scores than women for insomnia (9.9-point difference, Cohen’s d = 0.39), pain (7.1-point difference, Cohen’s d = 0.31), fatigue (6.2-point difference, Cohen’s d = 0.27), and dyspnoea (4.4-point difference, Cohen’s d = 0.22). The mean EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score was again slightly more favourable for men (men: 90.7, women: 86.5, Cohen’s d = 0.35). None of these were clinically meaningful.
Table 4
Weighted EORTC QLQ-C30 scoresa for the Dutch general population stratified by age category (men)
 
Full sample
18–29 years
30–39 years
40–49 years
50–59 years
60–69 years
70+ years
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Global health/quality of life
79.3
19.1
78.3
22.4
77.0
18.3
78.8
19.4
79.5
16.0
80.7
18.9
82.8
16.8
Functioning scales
Physical
92.8
13.7
96.2
10.0
93.5
14.5
93.9
13.8
91.5
14.9
91.2
13.8
87.9
15.3
Role
90.7
20.3
95.0
13.8
91.2
23.5
89.7
22.1
87.7
22.1
89.7
20.2
89.1
20.8
Emotional
84.4
20.6
77.2
28.2
81.3
20.5
84.9
18.7
86.6
16.0
88.6
16.0
92.7
10.8
Cognitive
90.7
17.5
91.1
19.7
88.7
21.6
92.5
16.5
90.8
16.8
91.3
14.1
88.9
13.4
Social
93.2
18.7
91.1
24.3
92.6
20.6
94.2
15.2
94.0
16.9
93.2
16.3
94.9
13.9
Symptom scales
Fatigue
20.6
20.6
23.3
17.8
25.2
24.5
21.2
22.0
20.2
20.6
16.0
20.0
15.4
17.8
Nausea/vomiting
2.3
8.8
3.9
12.7
2.7
9.4
1.3
5.1
2.2
8.8
1.3
5.1
1.5
6.3
Pain
14.1
20.1
11.7
16.8
14.5
21.3
13.8
22.4
18.2
22.5
15.8
19.8
10.9
17.1
Dyspnoea
7.4
17.8
3.3
10.0
9.8
23.8
5.3
14.0
7.7
16.3
12.0
22.0
8.9
20.6
Insomnia
16.3
24.0
14.4
24.0
21.1
25.7
14.7
23.4
18.3
23.9
16.0
24.4
13.5
22.3
Appetite loss
3.4
12.1
2.2
8.4
4.9
16.5
3.0
11.7
2.7
10.3
3.7
10.5
5.0
16.0
Constipation
2.9
11.1
3.3
10.0
2.5
13.3
1.3
6.6
2.0
9.3
4.3
13.1
4.6
14.2
Diarrhoea
5.5
15.7
6.7
18.1
8.8
21.2
5.0
13.7
3.3
11.1
5.0
12.9
4.0
14.4
Financial difficulties
4.3
16.8
4.4
18.8
7.8
25.2
3.0
12.6
4.0
13.6
4.0
15.9
2.6
9.1
Summary score
90.7
11.0
90.9
10.3
89.1
14.6
91.5
11.1
90.5
9.6
90.8
11.1
91.5
9.3
aMean scale scores were weighted by the sex and age distribution of the adult Dutch population, using the 2015 population distribution statistics published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division
Table 5
Weighted EORTC QLQ-C30 scoresa for the Dutch general population stratified by age category (women)
 
Full sample
18–29 years
30–39 years
40–49 years
50–59 years
60–69 years
70+ years
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Global health/quality of life
75.6
20.4
68.4
20.4
74.1
22.9
74.5
22.2
79.3
17.4
76.5
19.9
83.3
15.6
Functioning scales
Physical
88.6
15.6
91.5
12.3
93.8
10.2
89.3
17.5
90.5
13.8
82.8
18.3
82.6
17.5
Role
87.6
22.6
89.0
23.4
88.1
21.9
86.5
25.6
89.4
20.0
83.8
24.5
88.2
19.2
Emotional
80.2
21.5
72.5
25.8
77.2
22.2
79.9
23.3
80.1
17.6
85.9
17.9
88.2
15.0
Cognitive
89.8
16.8
86.7
22.7
92.0
14.2
87.7
18.3
90.9
14.6
91.3
12.7
91.7
12.4
Social
90.7
19.2
89.0
19.9
90.5
20.3
87.3
24.2
94.1
13.9
91.3
17.4
92.3
17.7
Symptom scales
Fatigue
26.8
24.8
35.6
28.6
27.2
22.3
29.4
26.8
22.8
20.2
24.2
24.7
18.4
19.4
Nausea/vomiting
4.8
14.1
9.1
20.3
6.0
14.7
3.7
9.7
2.5
9.6
3.7
12.7
2.5
11.2
Pain
21.2
24.8
22.0
24.4
17.0
23.0
19.2
25.7
23.9
24.2
25.5
28.0
19.0
23.1
Dyspnoea
11.7
21.3
12.1
19.0
10.7
25.5
9.3
20.2
11.6
19.7
14.3
25.7
12.0
18.7
Insomnia
26.2
27.1
23.5
25.3
23.2
23.7
29.7
32.1
29.0
29.3
28.3
25.7
23.7
24.8
Appetite loss
6.4
17.4
8.3
19.1
6.0
14.3
6.7
19.0
4.6
15.7
6.0
17.4
6.3
17.6
Constipation
6.9
15.4
6.1
16.4
7.1
15.2
7.0
15.9
7.9
15.0
5.7
14.3
7.7
15.6
Diarrhoea
8.2
19.5
12.1
22.7
10.1
21.0
7.0
18.5
5.9
16.6
7.7
20.6
5.3
15.5
Financial difficulties
5.4
17.4
9.1
25.1
3.0
9.6
4.7
14.3
6.6
17.0
5.3
16.3
3.0
13.5
Summary score
86.5
12.8
84.6
13.6
87.3
12.7
86.1
15.1
87.4
11.7
86.2
12.1
88.3
10.3
aMean scale scores were weighted by the sex and age distribution of the adult Dutch population, using the 2015 population distribution statistics published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division
The age patterns described above were found for both men and women. For physical functioning, scores were worse with increasing age (men: age 18–29 years: 96.2; age 70+ years: 87.9, Cohen’s d = 0.68; women: age 18–29 years: 91.5; age 70+ years: 82.6, Cohen’s d = 0.60), for emotional functioning, scores were better with increasing age (men: age 18–29 years: 77.2; age 70+ years: 92.7, Cohen’s d = 0.68; women: age 18–29 years: 72.5; age 70+ years: 88.2, Cohen’s d = 0.72). Varying patterns were found for the association between age and symptom experience.

Discussion

This study describes Dutch EORTC QLQ-C30 normative data stratified by age and sex. Mean functioning ranged between 82 and 92 points (with 100 points indicating perfect functioning), while symptom scores ranged between 4 and 24 points (with 0 indicating no symptom burden). Clinically meaningful trends were found for emotional functioning (where scores were better with increasing age), similar to other recent publications in this area [1518]. Most symptom scores remained stable over age categories. However, fatigue scores were better with increasing age (clinically meaningful difference). Men generally reported better functioning, and lower symptom burden for insomnia, pain, fatigue, and dyspnoea, but except for insomnia, these differences were not clinically meaningful.
Dutch general population data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 have been published previously by van de Poll-Franse et al. based on a 2009 survey of 1700 individuals [19]. Similar to our findings and the results of the larger European parent study from which our sample stems [13], van de Poll-Franse et al. described clinically meaningful worse physical functioning scores with increasing age; differences in scores between age groups for other functioning scales were not clinically meaningful. Like our findings, men scored significantly better than women did on most functioning scales but differences were not clinically meaningful [19]. Subsequently, Mols et al. [20] carried out five consecutive annual assessments (2009–2013) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in 1743 (2009), 2050 (2010), 2040 (2011), 2194 (2012), and 2333 (2013) individuals from the Dutch general population. They reported that, in general, HRQoL was worse among the older age groups; these findings were clinically meaningful for physical and role functioning. Similar to our findings, they reported non-clinically meaningful higher summary scale scores in men than in women and in the younger compared to the older age groups. However, in contrast to our findings, Mols et al. found clinically meaningful age differences for pain and dyspnoea (both worse scores with increasing age), as well as clinically meaningful worse scores in women compared to men for fatigue, and pain.
Contrasting to van de Poll-Franse et al. [19] and Mols et al. [20], we found clinically meaningful better emotional functioning with increasing age. Previous international literature yields mixed findings, with some studies observing this trend [13, 16, 17, 30] and others not [31, 32]. Actual differences in emotional functioning may have occurred over time, for example by changes in society over the past decade that especially affected younger people. Further, both previous Dutch studies [19, 20] found a clinically meaningful worse fatigue scores with increasing age, while we found that fatigue scores were better in older respondents. Both previous Dutch studies reported clinically meaningful differences for other symptom scales, including pain, insomnia, and dyspnoea, while in our study we observed stable symptom scores. A possible explanation for the observed differences between studies could lie in the detrimental effect of health conditions on HRQoL [33]. In our study, 52% percent of individuals reported no chronic health conditions (weighted sample). This is higher than the 38% reported by van de Poll-Franse et al. [19], the 40% reported by Mols et al. [20], and the 41% of the actual proportion of individuals without chronic health conditions reported in a 2020 Dutch public health report [34]. In our study, in particular, participants in the older age categories may have been ‘healthier’ than the data from the Dutch public health report suggest, resulting in an overestimation of their HRQoL. A related Dutch report on national health statistics described relatively large differences in self-reported health experience between lower and more highly educated persons, with the latter reporting better health [35]. We included 42% of participants with a university degree or higher, whereas van de Poll-Franse et al. reported 37% and Mols et al. only 13%. According to Statistics Netherlands, that publishes annual data on the characteristics of the Dutch population, the percentage of individuals with a university degree was 16% in 2019 and has been increasing over the past decade across age groups [36].
Comparing our data to Statistics Netherlands 2017 suggests that the study data are representative in terms of most basic individual characteristics (age, sex, and marital status) [37]. Since 97.1% of the Dutch population had access to internet from their homes at the time we conducted our survey [38], it is unlikely that computer access played a role in the somewhat skewed educational background of our sample. A more plausible explanation is that highly educated individuals are more likely to participate in surveys than low-educated individuals, and it is therefore worthwhile to correct for education levels [39]; especially to avoid bias in the older age groups, as those who can use computers might be healthier because of their intellectual ability or access to health information [40]. Use of paper-and-pencil questionnaires and telephone-assisted surveys could aid in recruiting older individuals who would otherwise not be recruited into such studies. As opposed to age and sex, we could not correct for health status or education in our weighting approach, as that information was not available at an international standardised level, for instance from the United Nations statistics. In the original study by Liegl et al. [14], representativeness of sample characteristics was tested. Although the total sample was not representative based on educational level, as is the case with the present Dutch sample, it was found that observed group differences based on educational status were negligible, evidenced by very small effect sizes.
The mean functioning scores we report (between 82 and 92) are, together with scores from Austria (between 78 and 92 [16]), among the most favourable in Europe [13], where scores in Germany (between 74 and 85 [15]), Italy (between 74 and 88 [18]), and Spain (between 77 and 88 [17]) are slightly worse. In the international study sample and country-specific samples for Austria and Italy, HRQoL was generally better in respondents without health conditions [14, 16, 18]. Half of our population sample was free from health conditions (52%, weighted sample), comparable to the percentage reported in Austria (53%) [16]. In Germany (41%) [15], Italy (38%) [18], and Spain (39%) [17], and the parent sample (39%), notably smaller proportions of the population samples reported having no health conditions (weighted samples). Similar to our study, Lehmann et al. [16] reported that 35% of their sample completed university-level education while, in fact, only 15% of the Austrian population has that level of education. The core publication by Liegl et al. [14] investigated in depth the relationship between education and HRQoL. Post-compulsory compared to less than post-compulsory education was associated significantly with better HRQoL. However, differences were of low clinical relevance as indicated by the small effect sizes (all eta2 ≤ 0.015).

Clinical practice implications and future research

In the current study, we observed floor effects for several symptoms, suggesting that a large proportion of the general population are not affected by these symptoms; hence, specific items of a cancer-specific questionnaire may not be applicable to them. However, the main aim of the current study was to provide a reference for users of the QLQ-C30 to enable them to put their cancer patients’ scores into context. Therefore, knowing that the prevalence of certain symptoms is very low in the general population is an important finding, too. Further, we are presenting mean scores in keeping with the other norm data publications [1318]; however, an alternative presentation of the data may have been appropriate, too, for example, data presented as percentiles to show that there is a proportion of persons of the general population who are indeed experiencing symptoms and/or have lower functioning.
In clinical practice, both reference data from other cancer patients and general population normative data can aid in the interpretation of HRQoL data obtained from cancer patients. The importance of stratified comparison is underlined by the differences in functioning and symptoms we found between men and women, and between different age categories. Comparison with normative data is particularly interesting for determining the effect of cancer and cancer treatment on long-term survivorship: 60% of Dutch cancer patients will live at least five years after a cancer diagnosis [41]. The updated general population normative data presented here will enable such comparisons between the Dutch general population and Dutch cancer patients.

Acknowledgements

We thank Eveline Bleiker, Jacobien Kieffer and Marieke van Leeuwen who supported us with the translation and cultural adaptation of sociodemographic variables for the Dutch context.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

SN: received grant EORTC Quality of Life Group grant #001 2015 (payments were made to Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany); was employed as a consultant/director by ICON plc from September 2018 to June 2021 and by Union Chimique Belge Biosciences GmbH from July 2021 until December 2021. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
No ethics approval was sought as the study is based on panel data. According to the NHS Health Research Authority and the European Pharmaceutical Market Research Association (EphMRA), panel research does not require ethical approval if ethical guidelines are followed. The survey was distributed via the GfK SE (member of EphMRA) and obtained informed consent by each participant before the study. All data were collected anonymously and identification of the respondents through the authors is impossible.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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

Onze productaanbevelingen

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Lemieux, J., Goodwin, P. J., Bordeleau, L. J., Lauzier, S., & Théberge, V. (2011). Quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer: An updated systematic review (2001–2009). Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(3), 178–231.CrossRefPubMed Lemieux, J., Goodwin, P. J., Bordeleau, L. J., Lauzier, S., & Théberge, V. (2011). Quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer: An updated systematic review (2001–2009). Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(3), 178–231.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., de Haes, J. C. J. M., et al. (1993). The European Organisation 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 Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., de Haes, J. C. J. M., et al. (1993). The European Organisation 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
4.
go back to reference Cella, D., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Health-related quality of life measurement in oncology: Advances and opportunities. American Psychologist, 70(2), 175–185.CrossRefPubMed Cella, D., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Health-related quality of life measurement in oncology: Advances and opportunities. American Psychologist, 70(2), 175–185.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMed Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Porter, M. (2009). A strategy for health care reform—Toward a value-based system. New England Journal of Medicine, 361, 109–112.CrossRefPubMed Porter, M. (2009). A strategy for health care reform—Toward a value-based system. New England Journal of Medicine, 361, 109–112.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ong, W. L., Schouwenburg, M. G., van Bommel, A. C. M., Stowell, C., Allison, K. H., Browne, J. P., Cooter, R. D., Delaney, G. P., Duhoux, F. P., et al. (2017). A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) initiative. JAMA Oncology, 3(5), 677–685.CrossRefPubMed Ong, W. L., Schouwenburg, M. G., van Bommel, A. C. M., Stowell, C., Allison, K. H., Browne, J. P., Cooter, R. D., Delaney, G. P., Duhoux, F. P., et al. (2017). A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) initiative. JAMA Oncology, 3(5), 677–685.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Mak, K. S., van Bommel, A. C., Stowell, C., Abrahm, J. L., Baker, M., Baldotto, C. S., Baldwin, D. R., Borthwick, D., Carbone, D. P., Chen, A. B., et al. (2016). Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer. European Respiratory Journal, 48(3), 852–860.CrossRefPubMed Mak, K. S., van Bommel, A. C., Stowell, C., Abrahm, J. L., Baker, M., Baldotto, C. S., Baldwin, D. R., Borthwick, D., Carbone, D. P., Chen, A. B., et al. (2016). Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer. European Respiratory Journal, 48(3), 852–860.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Morgans, A. K., van Bommel, A. C., Stowell, C., Abrahm, J. L., Basch, E., Bekelman, J. E., Berry, D. L., Bossi, A., Davis, I. D., de Reijke, T. M., et al. (2015). Development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: An international effort for a unified approach. European Urology, 68(5), 891–898.CrossRefPubMed Morgans, A. K., van Bommel, A. C., Stowell, C., Abrahm, J. L., Basch, E., Bekelman, J. E., Berry, D. L., Bossi, A., Davis, I. D., de Reijke, T. M., et al. (2015). Development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: An international effort for a unified approach. European Urology, 68(5), 891–898.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Zerillo, J. A., Schouwenburg, M. G., van Bommel, A. C. M., Stowell, C., Lippa, J., Bauer, D., Berger, A. M., Boland, G., Borras, J. M., Buss, M. K., et al. (2017). An international collaborative standardizing a comprehensive patient-centered outcomes measurement set for colorectal cancer. JAMA Oncology, 3(5), 686–694.CrossRefPubMed Zerillo, J. A., Schouwenburg, M. G., van Bommel, A. C. M., Stowell, C., Lippa, J., Bauer, D., Berger, A. M., Boland, G., Borras, J. M., Buss, M. K., et al. (2017). An international collaborative standardizing a comprehensive patient-centered outcomes measurement set for colorectal cancer. JAMA Oncology, 3(5), 686–694.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Marquis, P., Chassany, O., & Abetz, L. (2004). A comprehensive strategy for the interpretation of quality-of-life data based on existing methods. Value Health, 7(1), 93–104.CrossRefPubMed Marquis, P., Chassany, O., & Abetz, L. (2004). A comprehensive strategy for the interpretation of quality-of-life data based on existing methods. Value Health, 7(1), 93–104.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Petersen, M. A., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Chie, W. C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., Dirven, L., Fayers, P., Gamper, E. M., Giesinger, J. M., et al. (2018). The EORTC CAT Core—The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. European Journal of Cancer, 100, 8–16.CrossRefPubMed Petersen, M. A., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Chie, W. C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., Dirven, L., Fayers, P., Gamper, E. M., Giesinger, J. M., et al. (2018). The EORTC CAT Core—The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. European Journal of Cancer, 100, 8–16.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Aaronson, N. K., Costantini, A., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Holzner, B., Johnson, C. D., Kemmler, G., et al. (2019). General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States. European Journal of Cancer, 107, 153–163.CrossRefPubMed Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Aaronson, N. K., Costantini, A., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Holzner, B., Johnson, C. D., Kemmler, G., et al. (2019). General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States. European Journal of Cancer, 107, 153–163.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Costantini, A., Fayers, P. M., Holzner, B., Johnson, C. D., Kemmler, G., Tomaszewski, K. A., et al. (2019). Establishing the European Norm for the health-related quality of life domains of the computer-adaptive test EORTC CAT Core Pages. European Journal of Cancer, 107, 133–141.CrossRefPubMed Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Costantini, A., Fayers, P. M., Holzner, B., Johnson, C. D., Kemmler, G., Tomaszewski, K. A., et al. (2019). Establishing the European Norm for the health-related quality of life domains of the computer-adaptive test EORTC CAT Core Pages. European Journal of Cancer, 107, 133–141.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Nolte, S., Waldmann, A., Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., & Rose, M. (2020). Updated EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data for Germany. European Journal of Cancer, 137, 161–170.CrossRefPubMed Nolte, S., Waldmann, A., Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., & Rose, M. (2020). Updated EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data for Germany. European Journal of Cancer, 137, 161–170.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Lehmann J, Giesinger JM, Nolte S, Sztankay M, Wintner LM, Liegl G, Rose M, Holzner B, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group (2020) Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 from the Austrian general population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01524-8 Lehmann J, Giesinger JM, Nolte S, Sztankay M, Wintner LM, Liegl G, Rose M, Holzner B, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group (2020) Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 from the Austrian general population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12955-020-01524-8
17.
go back to reference Arraras, J. I., Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Rose, M., Manterola, A., Illarramendi, J. J., Zarandona, U., Rico, M., Teiejria, L., Asin, G., et al. (2021). General Spanish population normative data analysis for the EORTC QLQ-C30 by sex, age, and health condition. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Arraras, J. I., Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Rose, M., Manterola, A., Illarramendi, J. J., Zarandona, U., Rico, M., Teiejria, L., Asin, G., et al. (2021). General Spanish population normative data analysis for the EORTC QLQ-C30 by sex, age, and health condition. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Pilz, M. J., Gamper, E. M., Efficace, F., Arraras, J. I., Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Rose, M. R., & Giesinger, J. M. (2022). EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for Italy by sex, age and health condition: an analysis of 1,036 individuals. BMC Public Health, 22, 1040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pilz, M. J., Gamper, E. M., Efficace, F., Arraras, J. I., Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Rose, M. R., & Giesinger, J. M. (2022). EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for Italy by sex, age and health condition: an analysis of 1,036 individuals. BMC Public Health, 22, 1040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference van de Poll-Franse, L. V., Mols, F., Gundy, C. M., Creutzberg, C. L., Nout, R. A., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Taphoorn, M. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2011). Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-sexuality items in the general Dutch population. European Journal of Cancer, 47, 667–675.CrossRefPubMed van de Poll-Franse, L. V., Mols, F., Gundy, C. M., Creutzberg, C. L., Nout, R. A., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Taphoorn, M. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2011). Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-sexuality items in the general Dutch population. European Journal of Cancer, 47, 667–675.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Mols, F., Husson, O., Oudejans, M., Vlooswijk, C., Horevoorts, N., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2018). Reference data of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire: Five consecutive annual assessments of approximately 2000 representative Dutch men and women. Acta Oncologica, 57(10), 1381–1391.CrossRefPubMed Mols, F., Husson, O., Oudejans, M., Vlooswijk, C., Horevoorts, N., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2018). Reference data of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire: Five consecutive annual assessments of approximately 2000 representative Dutch men and women. Acta Oncologica, 57(10), 1381–1391.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Quinten, C., Coens, C., Ghislain, I., Zikos, E., Sprangers, M. A., Ringash, J., Martinelli, F., Ediebah, D. E., Maringwa, J., Reeve, B. B., et al. (2015). The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 51(18), 2808–2819.CrossRefPubMed Quinten, C., Coens, C., Ghislain, I., Zikos, E., Sprangers, M. A., Ringash, J., Martinelli, F., Ediebah, D. E., Maringwa, J., Reeve, B. B., et al. (2015). The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 51(18), 2808–2819.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Hertler, C., Seiler, A., Gramatzki, D., Schettle, M., & Blum, D. (2020). Sex-specific and gender-specific aspects in patient-reported outcomes. ESMO Open, 5, e000837.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hertler, C., Seiler, A., Gramatzki, D., Schettle, M., & Blum, D. (2020). Sex-specific and gender-specific aspects in patient-reported outcomes. ESMO Open, 5, e000837.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Fayers, P., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A., on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. (2001). The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Fayers, P., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A., on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. (2001). The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
24.
go back to reference Giesinger, J. M., Kieffer, J. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. A., Scott, N. W., Sprangers, M. A. G., Velikova, G., & Aaronson, N. K. (2016). Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 79–88.CrossRefPubMed Giesinger, J. M., Kieffer, J. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. A., Scott, N. W., Sprangers, M. A. G., Velikova, G., & Aaronson, N. K. (2016). Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 79–88.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Husson, O., de Rooij, B. H., Kieffer, J., Oerlemans, S., Mols, F., Aaronson, N. K., van der Graaf, W. T. A., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2020). The EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score as prognostic factor for survival of patients with cancer in the “real-world”: results from the population-based PROFILES registry. The Oncologist, 25(4), e722–e732.CrossRefPubMed Husson, O., de Rooij, B. H., Kieffer, J., Oerlemans, S., Mols, F., Aaronson, N. K., van der Graaf, W. T. A., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2020). The EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score as prognostic factor for survival of patients with cancer in the “real-world”: results from the population-based PROFILES registry. The Oncologist, 25(4), e722–e732.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Using reference data on quality of life–the importance of adjusting for age and gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3). European Journal of Cancer, 34(9), 1381–1389.CrossRefPubMed Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Using reference data on quality of life–the importance of adjusting for age and gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3). European Journal of Cancer, 34(9), 1381–1389.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World population Prospects: The 2017 revision. DVD Edition; 2017. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World population Prospects: The 2017 revision. DVD Edition; 2017.
28.
go back to reference 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(1), 139–144.CrossRefPubMed 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(1), 139–144.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. StataCorp LP.; 2015. StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. StataCorp LP.; 2015.
30.
go back to reference Derogar, M., van der Schaaf, M., & Lagergren, P. (2012). Reference values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire in a random sample of the Swedish population. Acta Oncologica, 51, 10–16.CrossRefPubMed Derogar, M., van der Schaaf, M., & Lagergren, P. (2012). Reference values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire in a random sample of the Swedish population. Acta Oncologica, 51, 10–16.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Velenik, V., Secerov-Ermenc, A., But-Hadzic, J., & Zadnik, V. (2017). Health-related quality of life assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in the general Slovenian population. Radiology and Oncology, 51, 342–350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Velenik, V., Secerov-Ermenc, A., But-Hadzic, J., & Zadnik, V. (2017). Health-related quality of life assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in the general Slovenian population. Radiology and Oncology, 51, 342–350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Giesinger, J., Kemmler, G., Mueller, V., Zabernigg, A., Mayrbaeurl, B., Thaler, J., Ofner, D., Pegger, C., Rumpold, G., & Weber, B. (2009). Are gender-associated differences in quality of life in colorectal cancer patients disease-specific? Quality of Life Research, 18, 547–555.CrossRefPubMed Giesinger, J., Kemmler, G., Mueller, V., Zabernigg, A., Mayrbaeurl, B., Thaler, J., Ofner, D., Pegger, C., Rumpold, G., & Weber, B. (2009). Are gender-associated differences in quality of life in colorectal cancer patients disease-specific? Quality of Life Research, 18, 547–555.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Fossa, S. D., Hess, S. L., Dahl, A. A., Hjermstad, M. J., & Veenstra, M. (2007). Stability of health-related quality of life in the Norwegian general population and impact of chronic morbidity in individuals with and without a cancer diagnosis. Acta Oncologica, 46(4), 452–461.CrossRefPubMed Fossa, S. D., Hess, S. L., Dahl, A. A., Hjermstad, M. J., & Veenstra, M. (2007). Stability of health-related quality of life in the Norwegian general population and impact of chronic morbidity in individuals with and without a cancer diagnosis. Acta Oncologica, 46(4), 452–461.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Wennekers, A., Boelhouwer, J., van Campen, C., & Bijl, R. (2018). De sociale staat van Nederland 2018. Wennekers, A., Boelhouwer, J., van Campen, C., & Bijl, R. (2018). De sociale staat van Nederland 2018.
39.
go back to reference Spitzer, S. (2020). Biases in health expectancies due to educational differences in survey participation of older Europeans: It’s worth weighting for. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21, 573–605.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Spitzer, S. (2020). Biases in health expectancies due to educational differences in survey participation of older Europeans: It’s worth weighting for. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21, 573–605.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
go back to reference Heudel, P. E., Delrieu, L., Dumas, E., Crochet, H., Hodroj, K., Charrier, I., Chvetzoff, G., Durand, T., & Blay, J.-Y. (2022). Impact of limited E-Health literacy on the overall survival of patients with cancer. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 6, e2100174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Heudel, P. E., Delrieu, L., Dumas, E., Crochet, H., Hodroj, K., Charrier, I., Chvetzoff, G., Durand, T., & Blay, J.-Y. (2022). Impact of limited E-Health literacy on the overall survival of patients with cancer. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 6, e2100174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. (2019). Kankerzorg in Beeld: (Over)leven met en na kanker. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. (2019). Kankerzorg in Beeld: (Over)leven met en na kanker.
Metagegevens
Titel
Updated normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general Dutch population by age and sex: a cross-sectional panel research study
Auteurs
K. M. de Ligt
N. K. Aaronson
G. Liegl
S. Nolte
the EORTC Quality of Life Group
Publicatiedatum
09-04-2023
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03404-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2023

Quality of Life Research 9/2023 Naar de uitgave