Home  About us  Contact
 

Quality-of-life Instrument (quality-of-life + instrument)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

What changes in health-related quality of life matter to multiple myeloma patients?

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 4 2010
A prospective study
Abstract Objective: To determine the clinical significance of changes in quality-of-life scores in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), we have estimated the minimal important difference (MID) for the health-related quality-of-life instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. The MID is the smallest change in a quality-of-life score considered important to patients. Methods: Between 2006 and 2008, 239 patients with MM completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 at inclusion (T1) and after 3 months (T2). At T2, a structured quality-of-life interview was also performed. MIDs were calculated by using mean score changes (T2,T1) for patients who in the interview stated they had improved, deteriorated or were unchanged. MIDs were also estimated by the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve method as well as by calculation effect sizes using standard deviations of baseline scores. Results: MIDs varied slightly depending on the method used. Patients stating in the interview that they had ,improved' or ,deteriorated' had a corresponding change in EORTC QLQ-C30 score ranging from 6 to15 (improvement) and from 9 to17 (deterioration) (scale range 0,100). The ROC analysis indicated that changes in score from 7 to17 represent clinically important changes to patients. The effect size method suggested 5,6 to be a small and 11,15 to be a medium change. Conclusion: Calculation of MIDs as mean score changes or by ROC analysis suggested that a change in the EORTC QLQ-C30 score in the range of approximately 6,17 is considered important by patients with MM. These MIDs are closer to a medium effect size than to a small effect size. Our findings imply that mean score changes smaller than 6 are unlikely to be important to the patients, even if these changes are statistically significant. [source]

Use of the HIV-DERMDEX quality-of-life instrument in HIV-infected patients with skin disease

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, Issue 7 2001
Kent Aftergut MD
First page of article [source]

Less is more, or almost as much: A 15-item quality-of-life instrument for myasthenia gravis

MUSCLE AND NERVE, Issue 2 2008
Ted M. Burns MD
Abstract We describe the process whereby a recently developed myasthenia gravis (MG)-specific quality-of-life (QOL) instrument was reduced from 60 items to 15 items while maintaining potential usefulness in the clinic and in prospective treatment trials. In data from a recently completed prospective trial of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in MG, the MG-QOL15 correlated as highly as the 60-item MG-QOL for physical and social domains of the 36-item health survey of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36). Correlation coefficients for the MG-QOL15 were similar to the 60-item MG-QOL for the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), MG-specific Manual Muscle Testing (MG-MMT), and the MG-specific Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores at week 0 and for change in scores from week 0 to week 12 in the MMF trial. Using the physician global impression at week 12 of the trial as the "gold standard," the MG-QOL15 demonstrated high sensitivity. Because the MG-QOL15 instrument can be quickly and easily administered and interpreted, it is a potential QOL measure for treatment trials and the clinical evaluation of patients with MG. Muscle Nerve, 2008 [source]

Why are we ,weighting'?

COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, Issue 1 2004
An assessment of a self-weighting approach to measuring oral health-related quality of life
Abstract ,,, Objective: To determine whether or not self-weighting at an item level contributes to the performance of an oral health-related quality-of-life measure. Design: Data were collected in two national surveys conducted a month apart, one using the ,weighted' measure and the other an ,unweighted' version of the UK oral health-related quality-of-life measure. In addition, sociodemographic and self-reported oral health status were recorded. Results: The UK oral health-related quality-of-life measure discriminated between groups based on age group (<65, 65 and older) and social class (higher and lower) irrespective of the version of the questionnaire used. Both versions also showed significant associations with self-reported oral health: denture status (P < 0.01) and number of teeth possessed (P < 0.01). In addition, both versions demonstrated predictive ability in identifying those in prosthetic need (<20 teeth and without recourse to a denture, P < 0.01). Conclusion: Weighting the UK oral health-related quality-of-life instrument does not improve the psychometric properties of the instrument and thus raises questions about the value of self-weighting at an item level. [source]