Health-related quality of life assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in the general slovenian population

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of our study was to obtain reference data of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life dimensions for the general Slovenian population. We intend to provide the researchers and clinicians in our country with the expected mean health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores for distinctive socio-demographic population groups.MethodsThe EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire supplemented by a socio-demographic inquiry was mailed or distributed to 1,685 randomly selected individuals in the Slovenian population aged 18 – 90. Answers from 1,231 subjects representing socio-demographic diversity of the Slovenian population were collected and transformed into EORTC dimensions and symptoms. The impact of socio-demographic features on HRQL scores was assessed by multiple linear regression models.ResultsGender, age and self-rated social class are the important confounders in the quality of life scores in our population. Men reported better quality of life on the majority of the specific scales and, at the same time, reported fewer symptoms. There was no gender-specific difference in cognitive functioning. The mean scores were consistently lower with age in both sexes.ConclusionsThis is the first study to report the normative EORTC QLQ-C30 scores for one of the south-eastern European populations. The reported expected mean scores allow Slovenian oncologists to estimate what the quality of life in cancer patients would be, had they not been ill. As they are derived by common methodology, our results can easily be included in any further international comparisons or in the calculation of European summarized HRQL scores.

Health‐related quality of life around the time of diagnosis in patients with bladder cancer

“…Older participants experienced a deterioration for most of the functional scales, except for Emotional Functioning which was slightly increased in older people, and Social Functioning which was found to be unrelated to age. These findings are in line with earlier studies in general populations from other European countries .…”

“…It is important to recognize that people with bladder cancer may have a different baseline HRQoL compared with the general population, as the disease may have already had an impact at or around the time of diagnosis. No reference data are available for the general population in the UK; however, the mean scores of HRQoL (QLQ-C30) for the present study population were lower than data for the general populations of Germany, Norway, Sweden and Slovenia [30][31][32][33], but higher than the general population of the USA [34]. It is therefore, possible that HRQoL reference values for patients with bladder cancer depend on cultural factors; for example, Scandinavian populations have a high standard of living [35].…”

Examining relationships between age at diagnosis and health-related quality of life outcomes in prostate cancer survivors

“…Hinz et al examined the use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general German population in 2011, finding that the older populations had a significantly lower global health score than younger populations [ 21 ]. A study by Velenik et al examining HRQL measures in the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general Slovenian population found that scores were significantly affected by gender, age, and social class; mean scores decreased with increasing age [ 22 ]. Comparing our results in Dutch prostate cancer survivors to these reference values of normative populations, age was a significant factor leading to decreased physical functioning.…”

General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States

“…For the comparison of QLQ-C30 scores with cancer-patient data, the EORTC QLG has published reference values generated for various cancer populations [15]. In addition, general population norm data have been collected in different countries over the last two decades, with European data available for Denmark [16,17], Germany [18e20], the Netherlands [21,22], Norway [23,24], Slovenia [25] and Sweden [26,27], with the latest German publication providing a European norm by collating data from different samples [20]. However, a major drawback of this work is that inter-country comparisons are hampered because of the lack of a common sampling methodology across studies.…”