Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of time trade-off and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer

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

Abstract

Quality of life (QOL) measures are now accepted as indicators of efficacy in the palliative treatment of cancer. Utility measures may also provide valuable information in this area yet they have rarely been applied. To assess the concordance of QOL and utility scales, 93 patients with advanced, symptomatic cancer completed two QOL instruments, the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (QLI) and Spitzer Uniscale, and a time-trade off (TTO) question reflecting the utility of their health states. The scales were self-administered. All patients completed the QLI and Uniscale but only 37% of participants were prepared to trade time. The remainder comprised 39% who felt too well to trade time and 24% who did not wish to consider trading time at all. Those prepared to trade time had significantly worse scores on both QLI and Uniscale instruments than those who felt too well to trade. However the correlation between time traded and QLI and Uniscale scores was poor. We conclude that the TTO question used in this study, while not strongly related to QOL, provides a measure of the patient's attitude to their health state. This may explain why patients differ in their attitude to quantity vs. quality of life.

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. Donovan K, Sanson-Fisher RW, Redmond S. Measuring quality of life in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 959-968.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten SJO, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials; a taxonomy and review. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 140: 1441-1448.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health related quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 593-600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fletcher AE, Bulpitt CJ. Measurement of quality of life in clinical trials of therapy. Cardiol 1988; 75 (Suppl 1): 41-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477-487.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34: 585-597.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schipper H, Levitt M. Measuring quality of life: risks and benefits. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1115-1223.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moinpour CMcM, Feigl P, Metch B, Haydn KA, Meyskens FL, Crowley J. Quality of life end points in cancer clinical trials: review and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81: 485-495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchell A, Guyatt G, Singer J, et al. Quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1988; 10: 306-310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Churchill DN, Torrance GW, Taylor DW, et al. Measurement of quality of life in end-stage renal disease: the time trade-off approach. Clin Investig Med 1987; 10: 14-20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsevat J, Solzan JG, Tolan KK, et al. Health status and utilities of HIV+ and primary care patients. [Abstract] Clin Res 1992; 40: 569A.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D. The use of generic and specific quality-of life measures in hemodialysis patients treated with erythropoietin. Contr Clin Trials 1991; 12: 168S-179S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsevat J, Goldman L, Lamas G, et al. Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care 1991; 29: 1153-1159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kiebert GM, Stiggelbout AM, Kievit J, Leer J-WH, Van de Velde CJH, Dehaes HJCJM. Choices in oncology: factors that influence patients' treatment preference. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 175-182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand

    D. J. Perez, R. McGee, A. V. Campbell, E. A. Christensen & S. Williams

Authors
  1. D. J. Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. McGee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. V. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. A. Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Williams
    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

Perez, D.J., McGee, R., Campbell, A.V. et al. A comparison of time trade-off and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer. Qual Life Res 6, 133–138 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026438100283

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026438100283

Search

Navigation