Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 155–160 | Cite as

Confidant and breast cancer patient reports of quality of life

  • Ann K. Sandgren
  • Amy B. Mullens
  • Shannon C. Erickson
  • Kathleen M. Romanek
  • Kevin D. McCaul
Article

Abstract

It is well known that breast cancer patients report a temporary decline in their quality of life following diagnosis. Caregivers observe these changes, but only a few studies have examined the shared perceptions of patients and others concerning the patient's QOL. In this study, 112 women (96% white, 4% Native American), ages 34–84, rated their QOL 1–3 months after diagnosis on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT). The patients identified their main source of emotional support, and this confidant also completed the FACT. Most participants selected a spouse (60%); others selected a child (11%), friend (11%), or sibling (7%). Comparisons on five QOL subscales showed good agreement between patients and their confidants, with an average patient-confidant correlation across subscales of r = 0.34. At baseline, patients reported a higher overall QOL (M = 90.30) than their confidants (87.32), p = 0.05. At a 4-month follow up, significant patient/confidant difference was only obtained for the emotional well being subscale. Overall, the data attest to the reliability of the FACT, but they also suggest that confidants may overestimate how distressed patients feel, or that patients are reluctant to admit to distress. Such discrepancies could cause misguided social support efforts.

Confidant reports Quality of Life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Glanz K, Lerman C. Psychosocial impact of breast cancer: A critical review. Annals Beh Med 1992; 14: 204-212.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epping-Jordan JE, Compas BE, Osowiecki DM, et al. Psychological adjustment in breast cancer: Processes of emotional distress. Health Psychol 1999; 18: 315-326.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stanton AL, Snider PR. Coping with a breast cancer diagnosis: A prospective study. Health Psychol 1993; 12: 16-23.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganz PA, Desmond KA, Leedham B, Rowland JH, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR. Quality of life in long-term, disease-free survivors of breast cancer: A follow-up study. J Natl Ca Inst 2002; 94: 39-49.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cordova MJ, Andrykowski MA, Kenady DE, McGrath PC, Sloan DA, Redd WH. Frequency and correlates of posttraumatic-stress-disorder-like symptoms after treatment of breast cancer. J Con Clin Psych 1995; 63: 981-986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gotay CC, Muraoka MY. Quality of life in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 656-667.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holzner B, Kemmler MK, Moschen R, et al. Quality of life in breast cancer patients — not enough attention for long-term survivors? Psychosomatics 2001; 2: 117-123.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MAG, Detmar SB, Wever LDV, Schornagel JH. Value of caregiver ratings in evaluating the quality of life of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1206-1217.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MAG, Detmar SB, Wever LDV, Schornagel JH. Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 617-631.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Osoba D, et al. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 1997; 35: 490-506.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blazeby JM, Williams MH, Alderson D, Farndon JR. Observer variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surgery 1995; 82: 1200-12-3.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sigurdardottir V, Brandberg Y, Sullivan M. Criterion-based validation of the EORTC QLQ-C36 in advanced melanoma: The CIPS questionnaire and proxy raters. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 375-386.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nekolaichuck C, Bruera E, Spachynski K, MacEachern T. A comparison of patient and proxy symptom assessments in advanced cancer patients. Pall Med 1999; 13: 311-323.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy — breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 974-986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 570-579.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Method 1996; 1: 30-46.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psych Bull 1979; 86: 420-428.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. Essentials of Behavioral research: Methods and Data Analysis 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deschler DG, Walsh KA, Friedman S, Hayden RE. Quality of life assessment in patients undergoing head and neck surgery as evaluated by lay caregivers. Laryngoscope 1999; 109: 42-46.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forjaz MJ, Guarnaccia CA. Hematological cancer patients' quality of life: Self versus intimate or non-intimate confidant reports. Psycho-Oncol 1999; 8: 546-552.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clipp EC, George LK. Patients with cancer and their spouse caregivers: Perceptions of the illness experience. Cancer 1992; 69: 1074-1079.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lowenstein M, Schkade D. Wouldn't it be nice?: Predicting future feelings. In: Kahneman D, Deiner E, Schwarz N (eds), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Sage, 1999; 85-105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann K. Sandgren
    • 1
  • Amy B. Mullens
    • 2
  • Shannon C. Erickson
    • 2
  • Kathleen M. Romanek
    • 2
  • Kevin D. McCaul
    • 2
  1. 1.MeritCare Roger Maris Cancer CenterUSA
  2. 2.North Dakota State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations