Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardised quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer

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

Abstract

Purpose

Despite being readily available and practical to administer, standardised instruments are not widely used in clinical practice. Concerns have been raised about the validity of applying such data to individuals. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the practical difficulties of interpreting standardised HrQoL data for individual patients.

Methods

A purposive sample of 20 patients with colorectal cancer was chosen from 210 participants in a prospective HrQoL study. In an in-depth interview, individual participants were asked about their experiences and to review the accuracy of their own HrQoL data, collected over preceding months using four different instruments (FACT-C QLQ-C30/CR38 SF12 and EQ-5D). A framework qualitative analysis was used to develop emerging themes.

Results

A number of themes emerged from the analysis to explain why disparity arose between the patients’ experiences and the questionnaire data in certain situations. These included weakly worded items that over emphasised health problems, incongruous items within scales causing unpredictable scores, insufficient levels of response causing insensitivity, and unrecognised reversal of item direction causing contradictory scores. Exogenous factors such as mood and co-morbidities also influenced HrQoL reporting.

Conclusions

Data from standardised instruments can be used to measure the HrQoL of individuals in clinical practice, but the instruments used need careful selection and interpretation. Appropriate guidance linked to the themes of this study is provided.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Snyder, C. F., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Use of patient reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet, 374, 369–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. British Medical Journal, 322(7297), 1297–1300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Koller, M., & Lorenz, W. (1998). Quality of life research in patients with rectal cancer: Traditional approaches versus a problem-solving oriented perspective. Langenbecks Archives of Surgery, 383(6), 427–436.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Giesinger, J., Kemmler, G., Meranger, V., Gamper, E., Oberguggenberger, A., Sperner-Unterweger, B., et al. (2009). Towards the implementation of quality of life monitoring in daily clinical routine: Methodological issues and clinical implication. Breast Care, 4, 148–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carr, A. J., & Higginson, I. J. (2001). Are quality of life measures patient centred? British Medical Journal, 322(7298), 1357–1360.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Boyle, C. A. (1994). The schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life (SEIQoL). International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., Kliempt, P., & Ruta, D. (2007). Twelve years experience with the patient generated index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 705–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Velikova, G., Wright, P., Smith, A. B., Stark, D., Perren, T., Brown, J., et al. (2001). Self-reported quality of life of individual cancer patients: Concordance of results with disease course and medical records. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 2064–2073.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson, T. R., Alexander, D. J., & Kind, P. (2006). Measuring health related quality of life in the early follow-up of colorectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 49, 1692–1702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D. M., & Gandek, B. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey. Lincoln, Rhode Island: QualyMetric.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey[see comment]. BMJ, 316, 736–741.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire[see comment]. Quality of Life Research, 2, 169–180.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sprangers, M. A., Te, V. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1999). The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European organization for research and treatment of cancer study group on quality of life. European Journal of Cancer, 35, 238–247.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, J. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. A. (2007) Rasch and factor analysis of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G). Health & Quality of Life Outcomes 5.

  17. Luckett, T., King, M. T., Butow, P. N., Oguchi, M., Rankin, N., Price, M. A., et al. (2010). Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: Issues, evidence and recommendations. Annals of Oncology, 22, 2179–2190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baker, F. (2001). The basics of item response theory. University of Maryland: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.

  19. Mallinson, S. (2002). Listening to respondents: a qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuenstner, S., Langelotz, C., Budach, V., Possinger, K., Krause, B., & Sezer, O. (2002). The comparability of quality of life scores. A multitrait multimethod analysis of the EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36 and FLIC questionnaires. European Journal of Cancer, 38, 339–348.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Apolone, G., Filiberti, A., Cifani, S., Ruggiata, R., & Mosconi, P. (1998). Evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire: a comparison with SF-36 health survey in a cohort of Italian long-survival cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 9, 549–557.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Overcash, J., Extermann, M., Parr, J., Perry, J., & Balducci, L. (2001). Validity and reliability of the FACT-G scale for use in the older person with cancer. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 591–596.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Paterson, C. (2004). Seeking the patient’s perspective: a qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Quality of Life Research, 13, 871–881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Blazeby, J. M., Kavadas, V., Vickery, C. W., Greenwood, R., Berrisford, R. G., & Alderson, D. (2005). A prospective comparison of quality of life measures for patients with esophageal cancer. Quality of Life Research, 14, 387–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kemmler, G., Holzner, B., Kopp, M., Dunser, M., Margreiter, R., Greil, R., et al. (1999). Comparison of two quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients: The functional assessment of cancer therapy-general and the European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire-C30. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 2932–2940.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Holzner, B., Kemmler, G., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Kopp, M., Dunser, M., Margreiter, R., et al. (2001). Quality of life measurement in oncology–a matter of the assessment instrument? European Journal of Cancer, 37, 2349–2356.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Leis, A., Bezjak, A., Degner, L., & Velji, K. (2009). Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: A study of six presentation formats. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 6949–6956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Klinkhammer-Schalke, M., Koller, M., Ehret, C., Steiger, B., Ernst, B., Wyatt, J. C., et al. (2008). Implementing a system of quality-of-life diagnosis and therapy for breast cancer patients: Results of an exploratory trial as a prerequisite for a subsequent RCT. British Journal of Cancer, 99, 415–422.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gujral, S., Conroy, T., Fleissner, C., Sezer, O., King, P. M., Avery, K. N., et al. (2007). Assessing quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: An update of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Cancer, 29, 276–281.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Koller, M., Kussman, J., Lorenz, W., Jenkins, M., Voss, M., Arens, E., et al. (1996). Symptom reporting in cancer patients. Cancer, 77, 983–995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Koller, M., Heitman, K., Kussman, J., & Lorenz, W. (1999). Symptom reporting in cancer patients II. Cancer, 86, 1609–1620.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support and advice received from Prof. Paul Kind during the conception and conduct of this study. The administrative costs of this study were funded by the York Surgical Research Fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any financial or competing interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, c/o Deryn Gott (Secretary to Mr Alexander), York Hospital, Floor 4 Administration Block, Wigginton Road, York, YO31 8HE, UK

    Timothy R. Wilson & David J. Alexander

  2. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

    Yvonne Birks

Authors
  1. Timothy R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yvonne Birks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David J. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy R. Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, T.R., Birks, Y. & Alexander, D.J. Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardised quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer. Qual Life Res 22, 1879–1888 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0303-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0303-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation