These results lend support to the clinical and cross-cultural validity of the QLQ-BR23 as a supplementary questionnaire for assessing specific quality-of-life issues relevant to patients with breast cancer.

The EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life (the Study Group) has adopted a modular approach to quality of life (QOL) assessment in cancer clinical trials. A 'core' instrument-the QLQ-C30-has been designed to cover a range of QOL issues relevant to a broad spectrum of cancer patients. It is intended that this QLQ-C30 be supplemented by more specific subscales ('modules') to assess aspects of QOL of particular importance to specific subgroups of patients. Since individual members of the Study Group were to be involved in module development, guidelines were required to standardize the module development process in order to ensure uniformly high quality across modules. These guidelines are presented in this paper. The term 'module' is defined, the composition of modules is outlined, and the criteria used to develop modules are specified. The module development process, consisting of four phases (generation of relevant QOL issues, operationalization of the QOL issues into a set of items, pretesting the module questionnaire, and large-scale field-testing) is described in detail. Further, issues related to cross-cultural instrument development, and the need for monitoring the module development process from within the Study Group are discussed. Finally, experiences with developing two site-specific modules (i.e., for head and neck, and breast cancer), are presented and the extent to which the guidelines meet practical requirements is discussed. The guidelines appear to provide a practical tool for module construction, that can facilitate the development of a comprehensive system for assessing the QOL of cancer patients internationally.

The extent to which self-assessed work ability collected during treatment can predict return-to-work in cancer patients is unknown. In this prospective study, we consecutively included employed cancer patients who underwent treatment with curative intent at 6 months following the first day of sick leave. Work ability data (scores 0 -10), clinical and sociodemographic data were collected at 6 months, while return-to-work was measured at 6, 12 and 18 months. Most of the 195 patients had been diagnosed with breast cancer (26%), cancer of the female genitals (22%) or genitourological cancer (22%). Mean current work ability scores improved significantly over time from 4.6 at 6 months to 6.3 and 6.7 at 12 and 18 months, respectively. Patients with haematological cancers and those who received chemotherapy showed the lowest work ability scores, while patients with cancer of urogenital tract or with gastrointestinal cancer had the highest scores. Work ability at 6 months strongly predicted return-to-work at 18 months, after correction for the influence of age and treatment (hazard ratio ¼ 1.37, CI 1.27 -1.48). We conclude that self-assessed work ability is an important factor in the return-to-work process of cancer patients independent of age and clinical factors.

Although nonstoma patients generally fare better than do stoma patients, they also suffer from physical impairments induced by sphincter-saving procedures (e.g., impaired bowel and sexual function). These impairments may become more prevalent as ultralow anastomosis is more frequently applied, resulting in bowel and sexual dysfunction and related psychologic distress. Well-designed studies are needed that examine whether quality-of-life benefits are to be gained by use of ultralow anastomosis compared with colostomy.

The aim of this systematic review was to give a quality‐assessed review of the existing disease‐specific health related quality of life (QOL) questionnaires concerning rhinitis and rhinosinusitis for adults. The quality is assessed by defining the characteristics of a QOL questionnaire with assessment criteria. The results of the construction, description, feasibility, and the psychometric performance of the instruments are provided. We finally provide a clinician’s guide to choose a questionnaire based on the measurement goals, the discriminant validity, responsiveness and the points obtained in the quality assessment. Of the top scoring instruments regarding the overall quality assessment, only four health related QOL questionnaires for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis met our criteria for the discriminant validity and responsiveness.

Aims: To describe and assess the quality of rehabilitation of cancer survivors by occupational physicians and to relate the quality of the process of occupational rehabilitation to the outcome of return to work. Methods: One hundred occupational physicians of a cohort of cancer survivors were interviewed about return to work management. Quality of rehabilitation was assessed by means of four indicators that related to performance in knowledge of cancer and treatment, continuity of care, patients complaints, and relations at work. The cohort of patients was prospectively followed for 12 months to assess time to return to work and rate of return to work. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with care was also assessed. The relation between performance and these outcome measures was studied in a multivariate analysis, taking into account the influence of other work and disease related factors that could potentially predict return to work. Results: For knowledge of cancer and treatment, only 3% had optimal performance because occupational physicians did not communicate with treating physicians. For continuity of care, patient complaints, and relations at work, performance was optimal for 55%, 78%, and 60% of the physicians respectively. After adjustment for other prognostic factors, overall physician's performance (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8) and continuity of care (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) were related to the return to work of patients. Overall optimal performance was also related to a small but significant higher level of satisfaction with care, both for patients and physicians. Conclusion: Quality of occupational rehabilitation of cancer survivors can be improved substantially, especially with regard to communication between physicians and continuity of care. There is a need for the development of more effective rehabilitation procedures which should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.

BDI has a detrimental effect on long-term QoL. QoL in patients with BDI is poor and does not improve during follow-up. The outcome of a malpractice litigation claim is associated with QoL.

No abstract