Quality of Life and Functional Status Measures in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Psychological outcome of patients following treatment of oral cancer and its relation with functional status and coping mechanisms

“…according to the following variables: age, sex, site, stage, and treatment modalities of the tumour. This is consistent with most of the cross-sectional studies of psychological outcome in head and neck cancer patients (Telfer and Shepherd, 1993;Bjordal and Kaasa, 1995;D'Antonio et al, 1996). This adds to the difficulties in identification of patients with depressive disorder among the medium and long-term survivors of those who had been treated for oral cancer.…”

Quality of life research in head and neck cancer: A review of the current state of the science

“…If they do so, it is with an understanding that they sacrifice information regarding global health outcomes. Similar findings were reported by D'Antonio and colleagues [22].…”

Stepped‐care to improve mental health outcomes among underserved patients with lung and head and neck cancer

“…This comparative effectiveness study found a stepped‐care intervention to be more effective treating emotional distress and teaching coping skills to LC and HNC patients compared to usual care, a finding consistent with studies using stepped‐care to treat emotional distress 22,23 . Additionally, HRQoL outcomes were better for patients who received the stepped‐care intervention than for usual care patients, although the difference between groups in depression and HRQoL did not meet the minimal clinical threshold found in two studies 26,32 . MID of psychological treatment, however, must be cautiously interpreted based on variations in patient populations and clinical context 36,37 …”

“…A mean difference in HRQoL (Δ = −4.16 95% CI: −7.45, −0.87, p = 0.01) indicated a lower HRQoL for enhanced usual care patients compared to patients in the intervention. The mean difference of 4.16 in HRQoL is less than the MID reported in a previous study ranging between 4.37–8.0 32 . The perceived stress mean difference of 0.61 [−0.9, 2.12] indicate no evidence of a difference between groups.…”