Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardised quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer

Quality-of-Life in Achilles Tendinopathy: An Exploratory Study

OBJECTIVE

This research aimed to explore the quality-of-life and experiences of people with Achilles tendinopathy.

DESIGN

This mixed-methods research used the 8-dimension Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-8D), focus groups and grounded theory analysis. AQoL-8D scores were compared with population normative scores. In focus groups, participants discussed their experiences with Achilles tendinopathy.

SETTING

An online survey was completed, followed by focus groups and interviews held at the University of Canberra.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with Achilles tendon pain were eligible to participate in the online survey, which was distributed through email and social media.

RESULTS

Complete survey responses were obtained from 92 individuals, and 11 individuals participated in focus groups and interviews. AQoL-8D scores were significantly lower in those with Achilles tendinopathy (79 ± 11 vs 81 ± 13). AQoL-8Ds of mental health, pain, senses, and the physical "super dimension" were also significantly lower. The difference exceeded the AQoL-8D minimum clinically important difference of 6% only for the pain dimension. Themes identified included adapting lifestyles, living with the condition, changes in mental and social well-being, conflict with identity, frustration, and individual experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Achilles tendinopathy is associated with a lower quality-of-life score, but on average, the difference does not exceed the minimum clinically important difference. In focus groups, some individuals described profound impacts on their life. This discrepancy likely reflects the variability of the impact across individuals. For some people, the effect is minimal, yet for those who tie their identity and social activities to fitness and physical activity, the effect can be profound.

Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Uncertainty exists regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing PROs and HRQoL from both therapies.

METHODS

We assessed PROs and HRQoL from patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires at three sequential time points, including baseline. Global Health Status (GHS), functional and symptom scales, and Overall Treatment Utility (derived from clinical and patient-reported outcomes) were compared for the two treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Between January 2017 and April 2018, 44 patients were allocated to cetuximab (n = 19) or bevacizumab (n = 25). Except for RAS mutation status, patient baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across treatment groups. A higher proportion of patients experienced a deterioration in GHS (≥ 10%) in cetuximab arm - 53.8% (95% CI 25.1-80.8%) at 6 weeks and 66.7% (95% CI 29.9-92.5%) at 12 weeks-comparing to bevacizumab cohort: 18.2% (95% CI 5.2-40.3%) at 6 weeks and 12.5% (95% CI:1.6-38.3%) at 12 weeks. Treatment utility rates at 6 and 12 weeks were, respectively, 88.6% and 69.8% for bevacizumab, compared to 49% and 19.1% for cetuximab (p = 0.004), a difference confirmed in subset analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mCRC, cetuximab-containing regimens led to a progressive negative impact on PROs and global HRQoL, when compared to baseline and bevacizumab. Future research is needed to confirm these results. Our findings demonstrate the value of PROs when assessing comparative effectiveness of different treatment regimens.

Understanding patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer

Quality of life has become increasingly regarded as a key outcome measurement for cancer patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent the tools used to ascertain self-reported quality of life. This review provides a summary of the literature regarding the use of PROMs in colorectal cancer and evaluates the advantages and limitations of generic and disease specific questionnaires that can be utilized in clinical practice. Factors that influence PROMs are outlined, including cancer characteristics, patient factors and treatment methods. Finally, future directions for the use of PROMs in colorectal cancer to inform healthcare delivery at an individual- and systems-based level are discussed.

Assessing health-related quality of life in urology - a survey of 4500 German urologists

BACKGROUND

Urological diseases and their treatment may negatively influence continence, potency, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Although current guidelines recommend HRQOL assessment in clinical urology, specific guidance on how to assess HRQOL is frequently absent. We evaluated whether and how urologists assess HRQOL and how they determine its practicality.

METHODS

A random sample of 4500 (from 5200 identified German urologists) was drawn and invited to participate in a postal survey (an initial letter followed by one reminder after six weeks). The questionnaire included questions on whether and how HRQOL is assessed, general attitudes towards the concept of HRQOL, and socio-demographics. Due to the exploratory character of the study we produced mainly descriptive statistics. Chi²-tests and logistic regression were used for subgroup-analysis.

RESULTS

1557 urologists (85% male, with a mean age of 49 yrs.) participated. Most of them (87%) considered HRQOL assessment as 'important' in daily work, while only 7% reported not assessing HRQOL. Patients with prostate carcinoma, incontinence, pain, and benign prostate hyperplasia were the main target groups for HRQOL assessment. The primary aim of HRQOL assessment was to support treatment decisions, monitor patients, and produce a 'baseline measurement'. Two-thirds of urologists used questionnaires and interviews to evaluate HRQOL and one-quarter assessed HRQOL by asking: 'How are you?'. The main barriers to HRQOL assessment were anticipated questionnaire costs (77%), extensive questionnaire length (52%), and complex analysis (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of German urologists assess HRQOL as part of their clinical routine. However, knowledge of HRQOL assessment, analysis, and interpretation seems to be limited in this group. Therefore, urologists may benefit from a targeted education program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial was registered with the code VfD_13_003629 at the German Healthcare Research Registry ( www.versorgungsforschung-deutschland.de ).

Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments

The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire is widely used in oncology to generate quality of life weights (utilities). The typical purpose is to inform health economic evaluation studies. The EQ-5D is generally suitable for this purpose; it has shown a reasonable degree of reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness in the majority of the available studies. In situations of doubt, combination with other quality-of-life instruments may be an option. The authors expect that the five-level version of the EQ-5D will gradually replace the three-level version, due to reduced ceiling effects and more appropriate responsiveness. Further research should address the benefits achievable through additional dimensions or patient-based valuation, and the validity of EQ-5D versions for proxy respondents.

Are Single-Item Global Ratings Useful for Assessing Health Status?

The research performance of the single-item self-rating In general, would you say your health is: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? was evaluated relative to the SF-36 General Health Scale that contains this item, using data for a sample of psychiatric outpatients who had co-occurring chronic physical conditions (N = 177). The scale was more robust than the single-item in cross-sectional validity tests and for predicting 2-year outcomes, but the single-item had stronger discriminant validity as a measure of physical health, especially in post-baseline analyses. Single-item and scale were both sensitive enough to detect change in perceived health over 2 years and a conditional experimental effect on health self-perceptions in a randomized trial. These findings demonstrate that a global single-item can be as valid, reliable, and sensitive as a multi-item scale for longitudinal research purposes, even if the scale performs better in cross-sectional surveys or as a screening measure.

Are Single-Item Global Ratings Useful for Assessing Health Status?

The research performance of the single-item self-rating In general, would you say your health is: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? was evaluated relative to the SF-36 General Health Scale that contains this item, using data for a sample of psychiatric outpatients who had co-occurring chronic physical conditions (N = 177). The scale was more robust than the single-item in cross-sectional validity tests and for predicting 2-year outcomes, but the single-item had stronger discriminant validity as a measure of physical health, especially in post-baseline analyses. Single-item and scale were both sensitive enough to detect change in perceived health over 2 years and a conditional experimental effect on health self-perceptions in a randomized trial. These findings demonstrate that a global single-item can be as valid, reliable, and sensitive as a multi-item scale for longitudinal research purposes, even if the scale performs better in cross-sectional surveys or as a screening measure.

Meanings of quality of life held by patients with colorectal cancer in the context of chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE:

this study's aim was to interpret the meanings assigned to quality of life by patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

METHOD:

the ethnographic method and the medical anthropology theoretical framework were used. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observations with 16 men and women aged from 43 to 75 years old undergoing chemotherapy in a university hospital.

RESULTS:

the meanings and senses describe biographical ruptures, loss of normality of life, personal and social suffering, and the need to respond to chemotherapy's side effects; chemotherapy is seen as a transitional stage for a cure. Quality of life is considered unsatisfactory because the treatment imposes personal and social limitations and QoL is linked to resuming normal life.

CONCLUSIONS:

the meanings show the importance of considering sociocultural aspects in the conceptualization and assessment of quality of life.

[The significance of quality of life--an ethical approach]

Quality of life is highly appreciated as an evaluation criterion and a goal of interventions in medicine, but it is insufficiently applied. There is no unanimous definition of "quality of life". From a philosophical point of view, subjectivistic concepts can be differentiated from objectivistic ones. In medicine there are the three concepts of general, health-related and disease-specific quality of life. In this paper it is argued that a general and subjectivistic account of quality of life is of prevailing ethical significance, due to patient orientation and patient autonomy reasons. The normative function of quality of life should be given much more consideration by the responsible players in clinical research, healthcare and allocation decisions within the healthcare system.

[Is it quality of life that patients really want? Assessment from a general practitioner's perspective]

The multidimensional, complex construct of 'quality of life' as a patient-reported outcome is used in medicine as a measurable indicator of health and illness. But do we know what we do when we measure 'quality of life'? Can we grasp how the patient with his individual concept of disease really feels when we use instruments that were designed, administered and analysed by professionals? Do we know the meaning of what we have measured? Is it not shortsighted to focus on health-related quality of life? And is it really quality of life that patients actually want? From a general practitioner's perspective, these questions will be asked of three patients.