Quality of Life Research

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 0–0 | Cite as

Quality of life of Danish women: Population-based norms for the EORTC QLQ-C30

  • M. Klee
  • M. Groenvold
  • D. Machin


The aim of this study was to derive population-based norms for women completing the EORTC QLQ-C30 version 1 which is designed for use with patients who have cancer. The study was conducted using two different questionnaires: one designed for use in female patients with breast cancer, the other for those with gynaecological cancers, but both including the EORTC QLQ-C30. The women were drawn from the Danish Central Population Register without knowledge of their health status and divided at random between the two questionnaires. All procedures for collecting data were identical. The response rate for those receiving the gynaecological cancer (GS) questionnaire was 49% and it was 71% for the breast cancer (BS) questionnaire. Detailed comparison between the two samples revealed several EORTC QLQ-C30 items showing a clear difference in distribution of scores between them. Because of this and the possible bias due to the relative low age-related response rate in GS, only the results from the BS are used for constructing norms. The norms cover all 30 single items on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the nine derived scales, for women in four 10-year age groups commencing at 30 years and for those aged 70-75. Clear trends in, for example, declining ability to undertake strenuous activity are illustrated and quantified. Levels of certain symptoms, such as pain, are surprisingly high although it is recognized that the population sampled will contain a proportion of women with active disease including cancer. We recommend the use of these norms both as an aid to the clinical assessment of an individual patient, and to assist in the interpretation of clinical trial and longitudinal quality of life data. As a secondary result, we note that a population-based sample will have a lower response rate to a questionnaire with more questions, especially if many of these extra questions are on sexual issues.

EORTC-QLQ-C30 breast cancer gynaecological cancer norms 


  1. 1.
    Sandøe P, Kappel K. Changing preferences — conceptual problems in comparing health-related quality of life. In: Nordenfelt L, ed. Quality of Life: Concepts and Measurement in Health Care.London: KIuwer Publishers, 1993: 61-80.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware JE, Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide.Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crum RM, Anthony J, Bassett SS, Folstein MF. Population based norms for the mini-mental state examination by age and educational level. JAMA 1993; 269: 2386-2391.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forsberg C, Björvell H. Swedish population norms for the OHRI, HI and STM-state. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 349-356.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klee M, Groenvold M, Machin D. On the presentation of data from longitudinal studies of health-related quality of life. Examples from a study of patients with advanced stages of cervical cancer. (in preparation)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al.The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI 1993; 85: 365-376. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC core quality-of-life questionnaire: Interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life.Boston: CRC Press Inc, 1991: 85-203.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aaronson NK, Cull A, Kaasa S, Sprangers MAO. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: an update. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials.New York, NY: Raven Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groenvold M, Bjorner B, Klee M, Kreiner S. Test for item bias in a quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 805-816.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Sullivan M. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual.Brussels, Belgium: EORTC, 1995: 1-49.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SPSS Inc. SPSS Base system.Chicago, IL (USA): SPSS Inc, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 1993; 306: 437-440.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thranov I, Klee M. Sexuality among gynecologic cancer patients - A cross-sectional study. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 52: 4-9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen IL, Larsen OK, Fog E, Kelstrup J, Madsen J, Garde K. Sexologi og epidemiologisk metode (Sexology and epidemiology). Ugesk Læg 1986; 148: 2859-2863.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groenvold M, Klee M. Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient/observer agreement: (Submitted).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Breetvelt IS, van Dam FSAM. Under reporting by cancer patients: The case of response-shift. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 981-987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sudman S, Bradburn NM. Asking Questions. A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1995: 1-385.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Klee
    • 1
  • M. Groenvold
    • 2
  • D. Machin
    • 3
  1. 1.The Finsencenter, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Social MedicineUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Cancer Trials OfficeMRCCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations