Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cancer patients' preferences for communicating clinical trial quality of life information: A qualitative study

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

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a prevalent outcome measure in clinical trials, but it is not known how best to communicate HRQL results to new patients with cancer. The purpose was to explore cancer patients' attitudes toward, and preferences for, 10 visual and written formats for communicating HRQL information. Using standardized qualitative methods, six focus groups were held (two groups in each of three cancer centres) with patients who had completed treatment for cancer at least 6 months earlier. Groups were stratified according to patients' education. To ensure consistency across centres, group moderators used the same detailed guide, training video, and props. Three investigators independently coded the resulting transcripts. Participants also rated each of the 10 presentation formats as to their perceived usefulness. Fourteen men and 19 women with a variety of cancer diagnoses participated; 13 (39%) participated in the three lower-education groups and 20 (61%) in the three higher-education groups. We found that simple formats (simple graphs or written text) were generally preferred to more complex graphical information, regardless of educational level. The same format was rated favourably by the highest proportion of participants in both the high (85%) and low (85%) education level groups. Individual patients, however, varied as to which visual format they most preferred. Patients did not wish to receive HRQL information out of context or without explanation. We conclude that cancer patients desire HRQL information, but vary in their preferences for its communication. Simple formats are generally preferred.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davison J, Degner LF, Morgan TR. Information and decision-making preferences of men with prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 1995; 22: 1401–1408.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sutherland HJ, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Till JE. Cancer patients: Their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions. J Royal Soc Med 1989; 82: 260–263.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wiggers JH, Donovan KO, Redman S, Sanson-Fisher RW. Cancer patient satisfaction with care. Cancer 1990; 66: 610–616

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 1980; 92: 832–836.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chaitchik S, Kreitler S, Shaked S, Schwartz I, Rosin R. Doctor-patient communication in a cancer ward. J Cancer Educ 1992; 7: 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Hayter C, et al. What questions do patients with curable prostate cancer want answered? Med Decision Making 2000; 20: 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bezjak A, Taylor KM, Ng P, Macdonald K, DePetrillo AD. Quality-of-life information and clinical practice: The oncologist's perspective. Cancer Prevent Control 1998; 2: 230–235.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE. Expanding patient involvement in care. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102: 520–528.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobs C, Ross RD, Walker IM, Stockdale FE. Behavior of cancer patients: A randomized study of the effects of education and peer support groups. Am J Clin Oncol (CCT) 1983; 6: 347–350.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Meyerowitz BE, Watkins IK, Sparks FC. Psychosocial implications of adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 1983; 52: 1541–1545.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Molleman E, Krabbendam PJ, Annyas AA, Kloops HS, Sleijfer DT, Vermey A. The significance of the doctor-patient relationship in coping with cancer. Social Sci Med 1984; 18: 475–480.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wallace LM. Informed consent to elective surgery: The 'therapeutic' value? Social Sci Med 1986; 22: 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in Oncology. J Nat Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Haes JC, van Knippenberg FC. Quality of life instruments for cancer patients: 'Babel's Tower revisited'. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 1239–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Bruera E, Provost M, Rowe J, Tong. Validity of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire in the palliative care setting: A multi-centre Canadian study demonstrating the importance of the existential domain. Palliat Med 1997; 11: 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Tomas JJ, Mount LF. Existential well-being is an important determinant of quality of life. Evidence from the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire. Cancer 1996; 77: 576–586.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Till JE. Measuring quality of life: Apparent benefits, potential concerns. Can J Oncol 1994; 4: 243–248.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Browman GP. Science, language, intuition, and the many meanings of quality of life. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1651–1653.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 619–626.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–629.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kiebert G, Wait S, Bernhard J, et al. Practice and policy of measuring quality of life and health economics in cancer clinical trials: A survey among co-operative trial groups. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 1073–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Osoba D, Dancey J, Zee B, Myles J, Pater J. Health-related quality-of-life studies of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Nat Cancer Institute 1996; Monographs: 107–111.

  26. Ashbury FD, Lockyer L, McKerracher K, Findlay H. Focus groups with cancer patients: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the cancer experience. Cancer Prevent Control 1997; 1: 222–227.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Degner LF, Sloan JA. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res 1997; 29: 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Nickel JC, Mackillop WJ. The information required by patients with early-stage prostate cancer in choosing their treatment. Brit J Urol Internat 2001; 87: 218–223.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Asbury J. Overview of focus group research. Qual Health Res 1995; 5: 414–420.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Krueger RA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Greenbaum ER. The Handbook for Focus Group Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Carey MA. Comment: Concerns in the analysis of focus group data. Qual Health Res 1995; 5: 487–495.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Carey MA, Smith MW. Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A special concern in analysis. Qual Health Res 1994; 4: 123–127.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Statist Assoc 1984; 79: 531–554.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science 1985; 229: 828–833.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell B, Brundage M, Mackillop W. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decision Making 2000; 20: 228–238.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators' decisions to stop clinical trials: Prospective trial with repeated measures. Brit Med J 1999; 318: 1527–1531.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ottenbacher KJ. When is a picture worth a thousand p values? A comparison of visual and quantitative methods to analyze single subject data. J Special Educ 1990; 23: 436–449.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Carswell CM. The art and psychological science of graphical communication. Psychol Sci Agenda 1995; 8–9.

  41. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic. J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5: 402–405.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. Br Med J 1998; 316: 690–693.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

    M. Brundage, D. Feldman-Stewart & L. Zetes-Zanatta

  2. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

    A. Leis

  3. University of Toronto and the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada

    A. Bezjak, K. Velji & P. Ritvo

  4. Faculty of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Canada

    L. Degner

  5. NCIC Clinical Trials Group and Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    D. Tu & J. Pater

Authors
  1. M. Brundage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Leis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Bezjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Feldman-Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Degner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. Velji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. Zetes-Zanatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P. Ritvo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J. Pater
    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

Brundage, M., Leis, A., Bezjak, A. et al. Cancer patients' preferences for communicating clinical trial quality of life information: A qualitative study. Qual Life Res 12, 395–404 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023404731041

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023404731041

Search

Navigation