Cargando…

Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is considered to be an indispensable outcome measure of curative and palliative treatment. However, QoL research often yields findings that raise questions about what QoL measurement instruments actually assess and how the scores should be interpreted. OBJECTIVE: To...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Westerman, Marjan J., Hak, Tony, Sprangers, Mirjam A. G., Groen, Harry J. M., van der Wal, Gerrit, The, Anne-Mei
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2358935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18389384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9333-6
_version_ 1782152872860844032
author Westerman, Marjan J.
Hak, Tony
Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.
Groen, Harry J. M.
van der Wal, Gerrit
The, Anne-Mei
author_facet Westerman, Marjan J.
Hak, Tony
Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.
Groen, Harry J. M.
van der Wal, Gerrit
The, Anne-Mei
author_sort Westerman, Marjan J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is considered to be an indispensable outcome measure of curative and palliative treatment. However, QoL research often yields findings that raise questions about what QoL measurement instruments actually assess and how the scores should be interpreted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how patients interpret and respond to questions on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 over time and to find explanations to account for counterintuitive findings in QoL measurement. METHODS: Qualitative investigation was made of the response behaviour of small-cell lung cancer patients (n = 23) in the measurement of QoL with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Focus was on physical functioning (PF, items 1 to 5), role functioning (RF, items 6 and 7), global health and QoL rating (GH/QOL, items 29 and 30). Interviews were held at four points: at the start of the chemotherapy, 4 weeks later, at the end, and 6 weeks after the end of chemotherapy. Patients were asked to ‘think aloud’ when filling in the questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients used various response strategies when answering questions about problems and limitations in functioning, which impacted the accuracy of the scale. Patients had scores suggesting they were less limited than they actually were by taking the wording of questions literally, by guessing their functioning in activities that they did not perform, and by ignoring or excluding certain activities that they could not perform. CONCLUSION: Terminally ill patients evaluate their functioning in terms of what they perceive to be normal under the circumstances. Their answers can be interpreted in terms of change in the appraisal process (Rapkin and Schwartz 2004; Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 14). More care should be taken in assessing the quality of a set of questions about physical and role functioning.
format Text
id pubmed-2358935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23589352008-05-01 Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning Westerman, Marjan J. Hak, Tony Sprangers, Mirjam A. G. Groen, Harry J. M. van der Wal, Gerrit The, Anne-Mei Qual Life Res Article BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is considered to be an indispensable outcome measure of curative and palliative treatment. However, QoL research often yields findings that raise questions about what QoL measurement instruments actually assess and how the scores should be interpreted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how patients interpret and respond to questions on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 over time and to find explanations to account for counterintuitive findings in QoL measurement. METHODS: Qualitative investigation was made of the response behaviour of small-cell lung cancer patients (n = 23) in the measurement of QoL with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Focus was on physical functioning (PF, items 1 to 5), role functioning (RF, items 6 and 7), global health and QoL rating (GH/QOL, items 29 and 30). Interviews were held at four points: at the start of the chemotherapy, 4 weeks later, at the end, and 6 weeks after the end of chemotherapy. Patients were asked to ‘think aloud’ when filling in the questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients used various response strategies when answering questions about problems and limitations in functioning, which impacted the accuracy of the scale. Patients had scores suggesting they were less limited than they actually were by taking the wording of questions literally, by guessing their functioning in activities that they did not perform, and by ignoring or excluding certain activities that they could not perform. CONCLUSION: Terminally ill patients evaluate their functioning in terms of what they perceive to be normal under the circumstances. Their answers can be interpreted in terms of change in the appraisal process (Rapkin and Schwartz 2004; Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 14). More care should be taken in assessing the quality of a set of questions about physical and role functioning. Springer Netherlands 2008-04-04 2008-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2358935/ /pubmed/18389384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9333-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2008
spellingShingle Article
Westerman, Marjan J.
Hak, Tony
Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.
Groen, Harry J. M.
van der Wal, Gerrit
The, Anne-Mei
Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
title Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
title_full Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
title_fullStr Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
title_full_unstemmed Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
title_short Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
title_sort listen to their answers! response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2358935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18389384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9333-6
work_keys_str_mv AT westermanmarjanj listentotheiranswersresponsebehaviourinthemeasurementofphysicalandrolefunctioning
AT haktony listentotheiranswersresponsebehaviourinthemeasurementofphysicalandrolefunctioning
AT sprangersmirjamag listentotheiranswersresponsebehaviourinthemeasurementofphysicalandrolefunctioning
AT groenharryjm listentotheiranswersresponsebehaviourinthemeasurementofphysicalandrolefunctioning
AT vanderwalgerrit listentotheiranswersresponsebehaviourinthemeasurementofphysicalandrolefunctioning
AT theannemei listentotheiranswersresponsebehaviourinthemeasurementofphysicalandrolefunctioning