Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Computer-assisted approaches to the collection of quality of life data in oncology

By Adam Barnett Smith

Abstract

The assessment of cancer patients' quality of life (QOL) has been increasing in both importance and relevance in recent years, and is becoming more integrated into\ud clinical practice. This has been greatly facilitated by the development of standard QOL instruments. However, the standard questionnaires may overlook certain aspects of QOL or focus on areas which do not present a problem to patients.\ud \ud The aims of this thesis were to increase the relevance of QOL instruments to patients by developing systems that allow patients to select relevant domains from questionnaires and secondly, to minimise patient burden by reducing the number of questions presented to patients.\ud \ud Initially, a computer-assisted version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was compared with a standard electronic version of the questionnaire. Patients completed both forms on the same day. The results demonstrated that although patients completed the computer-assisted questionnaire more quickly, there was poor exact agreement, between the two forms. However, general agreement was good (i. e. > 70%) for all\ud symptom scales, but not for the majority of the functioning scales. In addition, patients tended to report higher levels of symptoms and poorer functioning on the standard questionnaire.\ud \ud Studies were then developed and conducted using Factor and Rasch analyses on a series of standard questionnaires, namely the HADS, the EORTC QLQ-C30, and the FACT-G, in order to assess their structure and the performance of\ud each item. The results from HADS scale demonstrated a two-factor structurecorresponding to anxiety and depression, and an overall psychological distress measure. In addition to confirming this structure, the Rasch analysis identified one misfitting item for each of the full HADS-scale and two subscales. \ud \ud For the EORTC QLQ-C30 the results demonstrated a four-factor structure corresponding to a physical functioning factor, a factor covering social and role functioning, and including pain and fatigue symptoms, a third factor covering the emotional and cognitive functioning domains, and finally a factor covering the remaining symptoms. The Rasch analysis demonstrated good fit for all items of the\ud Emotional Functioning, and Fatigue scales, and only one misfitting item from the Physical Functioning scale.\ud \ud The results for the FACT-G demonstrated four factors corresponding to the four FACT-G subscales, although all subscales contained at least two misfitting items.\ud \ud The misfitting items from the HADS were systematically removed from the HADS and its subscales, and the screening efficacy of the scales re-evaluated against psychiatric interview data (PSE/SCAN). The results demonstrated no loss in screening efficacy when these items were removed.\ud \ud In the final study scores from the corresponding scales of the EORTC QLQC30 and FACT-G were converted to log-odds (logit) scores and agreement between the scales was calculated. The results demonstrated high levels of agreement between three of the scales, namely Physical and Emotional Functioning and overall quality of life, and good levels of agreement for the other two scales (Role and Social Functioning).\ud \ud In conclusion, the utility of Rasch models in identifying items for removal from instruments in order to reduce patient burden was demonstrated in this thesis. This\ud work provides a foundation for the subsequent development of computer-adaptive questionnaires

Publisher: School of Medicine (Leeds)
Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk:732

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1994). A doi
  2. (2000). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale: Comparing empirically and theoretically derived structures. doi
  3. (1999). Anxiety and depression in breast cancer patients at low risk of recurrence compared with the general population: Avalid comparison? doi
  4. (1999). Are we using appropriate self-report questionnaires for detecting anxiety and depression in women with early breast cancer. doi
  5. (1999). Automated collection of quality of life data: A comparison of paper and computer touchscreen questionnaires.
  6. (1997). Avalidation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. doi
  7. (1990). Comparison of the General Health Questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. doi
  8. (2000). Depression in patients with lung cancer Prevalence and risk factors derived from quality-of-life data.
  9. (1983). Factor Analysis, doi
  10. (1997). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD): Some psychometric data for a Swedish sample. doi
  11. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. doi
  12. (1991). Observer bias in the assessment of anxiety and depression. doi
  13. (1994). Poor efficacy of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in the diagnosis of major depressive disorder in both medical and psychiatric patients. doi
  14. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with a population of members of a depression self-help group. doi
  15. (2001). revised version received 29
  16. (2002). Screening efficacy of the HADS: An item-response theory analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  17. (1990). Screening for adjustment disorders and major depressive disorders in cancer in-patients. doi
  18. (1994). Screening for anxiety and depression in cancer patients: The effects of disease and treatment. doi
  19. (1991). Screening for psychiatric morbidityin patients with advanced breast cancer: Validation of two self-report questionnaires.
  20. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. doi
  21. (1991). The factor structure and factor stability of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with cancer. doi
  22. (1993). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Homogeneity of the subscales. doi
  23. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. doi
  24. (2001). Validating automated screening for psychological distress by means of computer touchscreens for use in routine oncology practice.
  25. (1999). Validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for use with adolescents. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.