A cross-sectional and semantic investigation of self-rated health in the northern Sweden MONICA-study

Background: Self-Rated Health (SRH) correlates with risk of illness and death. But how are different questions of SRH to be interpreted? Does it matter whether one asks: “How would you assess your general state of health?”(General SRH) or “How would you assess your general state of health compared to persons of your own age?”(Comparative SRH)? Does the context in a questionnaire affect the answers? The aim of this paper is to examine the meaning of two questions on self-rated health, the statistical distribution of the answers, and whether the context of the question in a questionnaire affects the answers. Methods: Statistical and semantic methodologies were used to analyse the answers of two different SRH questions in a cross-sectional survey, the MONICA-project of northern Sweden. Results: The answers from 3504 persons were analysed. The statistical distributions of answers differed. The most common answer to the General SRH was “good”, while the most common answer to the Comparative SRH was “similar”. The semantic analysis showed that what is assessed in SRH is not health in a medical and lexical sense but fields of association connected to health, for example health behaviour, functional ability, youth, looks, way of life. The meaning and function of the two questions differ – mainly due to the comparing reference in Comparative SRH. The context in the questionnaire may have affected the statistics. Conclusions: Health is primarily assessed in terms of its sense-relations (associations) and Comparative SRH and General SRH contain different information on SRH. Comparative SRH is semantically more distinct. The context of the questions in a questionnaire may affect the way self-rated health questions are answered. Comparative SRH should not be eliminated from use in questionnaires. Its usefulness in clinical encounters should be investigated

Mental health-care utilization in survivors of childhood cancer and siblings: the Swiss childhood cancer survivor study

PURPOSE: We aimed to (1) describe the utilization of mental health-care in survivors and siblings, the association with severity of distress, and visits to other professionals in distressed survivors not utilizing mental health-care; and (2) identify factors associated with utilization of mental health-care in distressed survivors. METHODS: Within the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we sent postal questionnaires to all participants aged <16 years at diagnosis (1976-2003), who survived ≥5 years after diagnosis and were aged ≥16 years at study. Survivors and siblings could indicate if they utilized mental health-care in the past year. Psychological distress was assessed with the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18). Participants with scores T ≥ 57 on two of three scales or the Global Severity Index were considered distressed. RESULTS: We included 1,602 survivors and 703 siblings. Overall, 160 (10 %) and 53 (8 %), utilized mental health-care and 203 (14 %) and 127 (14 %) were considered distressed. Among these, 69 (34 %) survivors and 20 (24 %) siblings had utilized mental health-care. Participants with higher distress were more likely to utilize mental health-care. Distressed survivors not utilizing mental health-care were more likely to see a medical specialist than nondistressed. In the multivariable regression, factors associated with utilizing mental health-care were higher psychological distress and reporting late effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline the importance of developing interventional programs and implementing psychological screening in follow-up of survivors. It is also important to systematically address siblings' needs. In follow-up, patients at risk should be informed about existing possibilities or advised to visit mental health professionals

Age-specific correlates of quality of life in Chinese women with cervical cancer

10.1007/s00520-008-0473-6Supportive Care in Cancer173271-278SCCA

Quality of Life in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: a Systematic Review of the Literature (2001–2008)

Purpose The purpose of this paper was to provide a comprehensive, contemporary systematic review of studies that have examined the quality of life (QOL) of survivors of childhood cancer in order to extend upon the findings of earlier reviews. Materials and methods A review was conducted that used the databases MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Articles were included that were published in English between 2001 and 2008 and used quantitative measures and statistical tests to compare health-related quality of life (HRQL) or QOL of childhood cancer survivors with population norms or matched comparison groups. Results Thirteen studies were identified. Findings were contradictory across studies, yet by and large, reflected those of past reviews. In general, survivors’ scores on subscales representing physical, psychological, and social domains of HRQL/QOL were similar to comparisons, with the greatest differences being in physical well-being. Key personal and environmental factors were negatively correlated with the three domains across studies for survivors including: older age at diagnosis, longer time since diagnosis, certain cancer and treatment types, female gender, and a number of socioeconomic factors. Conclusions Lack of comparability across studies remains a problem due to wide variation in study focus and designs. Conceptual and methodological issues include: use of numerous HRQOL and QOL measures, lack of distinction between conceptualization and measurement of HRQL and QOL, lack of initial qualitative input from survivors about QOL, little examination of the influence of environmental factors on QOL, little attention to survivors’ satisfaction with life quality, use of small heterogeneous samples, and need for population-based longitudinal studies