Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Response shift in quality of life measurement in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In medicine, response shift refers to a change — as a result of an event such as a therapy — in the meaning of one's self-evaluation of quality of life. Due to response shift, estimates of side effects of radiotherapy may be attenuated if patients adapt to treatment toxicities. The purpose of our study was to assess to what extent two components of response shift, scale recalibration and changes in values, occur in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and to examine what the implications would be for treatment evaluation. In the week before start of post-operative radiotherapy, 46 patients filled out a questionnaire consisting of quality of life items of the SF-36 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist (RSCL) (pretest). During radiotherapy, patients were asked to fill out the questionnaire twice: a posttest (quality of life at that moment) and a thentest (quality of life before treatment, retrospectively), supposedly using the same internal standard. Changes in values were studied by asking the patients on the two occasions to rate the importance of seven attributes representing various domains of quality of life. Patients were also asked whether their quality of life with respect to the measured aspects had changed since the pretest (subjective transition scores). Significant scale recalibration effects were observed in the areas of fatigue and overall quality of life. When the groups were divided according to their subjective transition scores, significant scale recalibration effects were found in case of worsened quality of life for fatigue and overall quality of life, and in case of improved quality of life for fatigue and psychological well-being. The mean importance ratings remained fairly stable over time, except for ‘skin reactions’, which obtained less importance at the end of radiotherapy than before. In conclusion, effects of scale recalibration were observed that would have significantly affected quality of life evaluations, in that the impact of radiotherapy on fatigue and overall quality of life would have been underestimated. Changes in internal values were observed only for ‘skin reactions’.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1531–1548.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Howard GS, Ralph KM, Gulanick NA, Maxwell SE, Nance DW, Gerber SK. Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement 1979; 3: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Introduction to symposium on the challenge of response shift in social science and medicine (editorial). Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1505–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. De Meijer E, Hoogstraten J, Sprangers M. Meten met drie maten. Psychologie 1985; 8: 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697–704.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 58–67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ashby J, O'Hanlon M, Buxton MJ. The time trade-of technique: How do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Quality Life Res 1994; 3: 257–265.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. The challenge of response shift for quality-of-life-based clinical oncology research (editorial). Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 747–749.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507–1515.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sprangers MAG. Response-shift bias: A challenge to the assessment of patients' quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rev 1996; 22 Suppl A: 55–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sprangers MAG, van Dam FSAM, Broersen J, et al. Revealing response shift in longitudinal research on fatigue: The use of the thentest approach. Acta Oncologica 1999; 38: 709–718.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health status survey (SF-36): 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Haes JCJM, Olschewski M. Quality of life assessment in a cross-cultural context: Use of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist in a multinational randomised trial comparing CMF and Zoladex (Goserlin) treatment in early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 745–750.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Norman P, Parker S. The interpretation of change in verbal reports: Implications for health psychology. Psychology and Health 1996; 11: 301–314.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Ciampi A, Etezadi-Amoli J, Boyd NF, Till JE. The assessment of values in laryngeal cancer: Reliability of measurement methods. J Chron Dis 1984; 37: 283–291.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharp HM, List M, MacCracken E, Stenson K, Stocking C, Sieger M. Patients' priorities among treatment effects in head and neck cancer: Evaluation of a new assessment tool. Head Neck 1999; 21: 538–546.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA. When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychol Sci 1993; 4: 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Redelmeier D, Kahneman D. Patients' memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 1996; 66: 3–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients' decisions: Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 1993; 270: 72–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bernhard J, Hürny C, Maibach R, Herrmann R, Laffer U. For the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer research (SAKK). Quality of life as subjective experience: Reframing of perception in patients with colon cancer undergoing radical resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 775–782.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sprangers M, Hoogstraten J. Response-style effects, response-shift bias and a bogus-pipeline. Psychological Reports 1987; 61: 579–585.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Neymark N, Kiebert W, Torfs K, et al. Methodological and statistical issues of quality of life and economic evaluation in cancer clinical trials: Report of a workshop. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 1317–1333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Linking clinical relevance and statistical signicance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999; 37: 469–478.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Adang EM, Kootstra G, Engel GL, van Hooff JP, Merc-kelbach HL. Do retrospective and prospective quality of life assessments differ for pancreas-kidney transplant recipients? Transpl Int 1998; 11: 11–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    S. J. T. Jansen, M. A. Nooij & E. M. Noordijk

  2. Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    S. J. T. Jansen, A. M. Stiggelbout & J. Kievit

Authors
  1. S. J. T. Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. M. Stiggelbout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Nooij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. M. Noordijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Kievit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jansen, S.J.T., Stiggelbout, A.M., Nooij, M.A. et al. Response shift in quality of life measurement in early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Qual Life Res 9, 603–615 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008928617014

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008928617014

Search

Navigation