Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 5–14 | Cite as

Physicians' perspective on quality of life: An exploratory study of oncologists

  • K. M. Taylor
  • K. G. Macdonald
  • A. Bezjak
  • P. Ng
  • A. D. DePetrillo
Research Papers

Abstract

There is an implicit assumption that physicians incorporate quality of life (QOL) information in clinical decision-making. However, very limited data exists on how physicians view QOL information and how they actually use it. To explore this issue, an in-depth study was conducted using a semistructured interview guide, with 60 oncologists in Canada and the USA. While the majority of respondents perceived QOL as important they reported a tendency to use it informally and not in all situations. Key findings include the belief expressed by 88% of respondents that the term QOL could be defined, although they differed in their definitions. Although 85% stated that QOL can be formally measured, only a third perceived that the current instruments provide valid and reliable data. Respondents noted a number of significant benefits and drawbacks of using QOL data in their clinical practice that had not been previously noted in the literature. For example, its use as an endpoint in clinical trials was generally perceived to enhance both physician and patient participation. A drawback noted was that including QOL might adversely affect the decision-making process. These findings have been used to develop a self-administered questionnaire (MD-QOL) which will test the generalizability of these findings.

Key words

Decision-making oncology physician behaviour quality of life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Measuring quality of life today. Meth Aspects Oncol May 1990; 4: 29–38.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaronson NK. Quality of life research in cancer clinical trials: A need for common rules and language. Oncol May 1990; 4: 59–66.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    deHaes JCJM, Knippengurg V. The quality of life of cancer patients: A review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 1985; 20: 809–817.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osoba D. Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 608–616.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nayfield S, Ganz PA, Moinpour CM, et al. Report from a National Cancer Institute (USA). Workshop on Quality of Life Assessment in cancer clinical trials. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 203–210.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berzon RA, Simeon GP, Simpson RL, Tilson HH. Quality of life bibliography and indexes—1992 update. J Clin Res Drug Develop 1993; 7: 203–242.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor K, DePetrillo D, Macdonald K, et al. Quality of life information: How do/would oncologists use it? Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clinic Oncol. Orlando, USA 1993; 12A: 1573.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor K, Bezjak A, Macdonald K, et al. Oncologists' use of quality of life information: Implications for cancer supportive care. Proc 6th Int Conf Supportive Care. New Orleans, LA, USA 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor K, Bezjak A, DePetrillo AD, Macdonald K. Attitudes of oncologists to quality of life measurement. Clinical Trials in Oncol Conf. Toronto, Canada 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor K, Ng P, Macdonald K, Bezjak A, DePetrillo D. Developing a measuring instrument to assess physician use of QOL information. Clin Invest Med August 1994; 17: B88.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor K, Bezjak A, DePetrillo D, Macdonald K. Collecting quality of life information: Does it facilitate or impede physician accrual to randomized clinical trials? Int J Gyn Cancer 1993; 3 (Suppl 1): 44 (abstract 159).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohr KN: Applications of health status assessment measures in clinical practice. Med Care May 1992; Suppl MS: 1–14.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Cella D, Tulsky DS. Quality of life in cancer: Definition, purpose and method of measurement. Cancer Invest 1993; 11: 327–336.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyerowitz BE. Quality of life in breast cancer patients: The contribution of data to the care of patients. Eur J Cancer 1993; 28A (Suppl 1): S59-S62.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Dam FS, Linssen CA, Couzijn AL. Evaluating quality of life in cancer clinical trials. In: Buyse ME, Staquet MJ, Sylvester RJ (eds) Cancer Clinical Trials Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984: 26.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slevin ML. Quality of life: Philosophical question or clinical reality? Brit Med J 1992; 305: 466–469.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aaronson NK, Meyerowitz BE, Bard M, et al. Quality of life research in oncology: Past achievements and future priorities. Cancer 1991; 6 (Suppl 3): 839–843.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lomas J. Words without action? The production, dissemination and impact of consensus recommendations. Ann Rev Pub Hlth 1991; 12: 41–66.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drummond MF. Resource allocation decision in health care: A role of quality of life assessment? J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 605–616.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reynolds T. Quality of life adds a human dimension on treatment cost-effectiveness. J Natl Cancer Inst May 4, 1994; 86(9): 661–662.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Till JE. Uses and some possible abuses of quality of life measures. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 1991: 137–154.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor KM, Feldstein ML, Skeel RT, Pandya K, Ng P, Carbone P. Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process. Results of the 1737 Eastern Cooperative Group Investigations. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 1796–1805.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Light D, Levine S. The changing character of the medical profession: A theoretical overview. Milbank Quarterly 1988; 66(Suppl 2): 10–31.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coburn D. Canadian medicine: Dominance or proletarianization? Milbank Quarterly 1988; 66(Suppl 2): 92–117.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duran-Arenas LB, Kennedy MC. The constitution of physicians' power: A theoretical framework for comparative analysis. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 643–648.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor K. Integrating conflicting physician roles: Physician participation in randomized clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35: 217–224.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor K, Macdonald K, Ng P, Bezjak A, DePetrillo D. The black box: Physician response to cancer guidelines. Can J Oncol 1995 (in press).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macdonald K. Adoption of Health Care Innovations by Canadian Physicians. Ottawa, Canada: Micromedia Ltd., 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harris JS. Why doctors do what they do: Determinants of physician behaviour. J Occup Med 1990; 32: 1207–1220.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taylor K, Margolese R, Soskolne C. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients onto randomized clinical trials for breast cancer. New Eng J Med 1984; 310: 1372–1376.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research Research Methods for Primary Care Series, Vol 3. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1992: 31–44.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1990.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Meter KM. Methodological and design issues: Techniques for assessing the representatives of snowball samples. NIDA Research Monograph 1990; 98,51.40: 31–43.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    American Society for Clinical Oncology. ASCO Membership Directory 1992.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Annual Directory of Canadian Physicians. Toronto, Canada: Southam Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Glaser BG. Emergence Versus Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA. Sociology Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Firestone WA. Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educ Res 1993; 22: 16–23.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 1990.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Taylor KM, Macdonald KG, Nicholson J, et al. Quality of life information—How do/would oncologists use it in treatment planning. 4th Int Conf on Chemotherapy. Paris, France 1993.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Taylor KM, DePetrillo AD, Macdonald KG, et al. Quality of life or survival as the key endpoint in randomized cancer trials—The oncologist's view. Soc for Clin Trials. Orlando, FL, USA 1993.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mor V, Laliberte L, Morris JN, Wiemann M. The Karnofsky performance status scale: An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer 1984; 53: 2002–2007.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schag CC, Heinrich R, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: Reliability, validity, and quidelines. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 187–193.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bruner DW. In search of the ‘quality’ in quality-of-life research. Int J Radiation Oncol, Biol Phys. 1995; 31: 191–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Taylor
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  • K. G. Macdonald
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Bezjak
    • 4
  • P. Ng
    • 3
  • A. D. DePetrillo
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Administrative StudiesYork UniversityNorth YorkCanada
  2. 2.Department of NursingYork UniversityNorth YorkCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsYork UniversityNorth YorkCanada
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyOntario Cancer Institute/Princess Margaret HospitalTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of Surgical OncologyOntario Cancer Institute/Princess Margaret HospitalTorontoCanada
  6. 6.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations