Quality of Life Index for Patients with Cancer

Padilla, Geraldine; Presant, Cary A.; Grant, Marcia; Metter, Gerald E.; Lipsett, James A.; Heide, Frances

doi:10.1002/nur.4770060305

Cited by 272 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scale was used to assess the physical status of cancer patients with scores from 0 (dead) to 100 (normal functioning) (Karnofsky et al, 1949). The Quality of Life Cancer Scale (QOL-CA) was designed to measure patients' health-related quality of life based on a multidimensional concept (Padilla et al, 1983). This instrument consists of 30 questions rated on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer patients: a comparison of different age groups

Greimel¹,

Padilla²,

Grant³

1997

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In a cross-sectional study, we investigated the relationship between age, physical health, social and economic resources, functional status, activities of daily living (ADL) and disease-related variables of 227 patients with cancer. Using multidimensional outcome measures we examined age differences in three age groups (< 45, 46-65, >65 years) and identified predictors of performing ADL. The results indicated that older patients have outcomes similar to those of younger patients. There were no significant differences in quality of life, performance status and physical health among the three age groups. The only areas where age-related differences were found were comorbidity and cancer-related impairments. Patients aged 45-65 years and patients 65 years and older reported a higher level of co-morbidity and more cancer-related impairments than those aged 45 and younger. Although older patients had higher co-morbidity, they showed similar Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scores to those of their younger counterparts. The regression analysis revealed social resources, selfreported health, performance status and complexity of care as significant predictors of patients' ADL, but not age, co-morbidity or severity of treatment. The findings support the conclusion that differences in performing ADL between younger and older patients with cancer are minimal and tend to be due to co-morbidity. Thus, treatment should be decided by a patient's physical health rather than by age.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer patients: a comparison of different age groups

Greimel¹,

Padilla²,

Grant³

1997

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need to objectively measure quality of life during clinical trials of anti-cancer therapy is, however, widely recognised, as treatment is often toxic and is frequently given with palliative rather than curative intent. Several instruments have been developed to quantitate these subjective parameters (Coates et al, 1983;Gough et al, 1983;Padilla et al, 1983;Priestman & Baum, 1976;Presant et al, 1981;Selby et al, 1984;De Haas & Van Knippenburg, 1985). The question is no longer whether these factors should be measured, but what is the most reliable and practical means of obtaining these essential data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?

Slevin

Plant²,

Lynch³

et al. 1988

Br J Cancer

836

389

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The extent to which a doctor or health professional can make a valid assessment of a patient's quality of life, anxiety and depression was investigated in a series of cancer patients. Doctors and patients filled out the same forms, viz. the Karnofsky, Spitzer, Linear Analogue Self Assessment Scales and a series of simple scales designed for this study, at the same time. Correlations between the two sets of scores were poor, suggesting that the doctors could not accurately determine what the patients felt. A further study examining the reproducibility of these scales demonstrated considerable variability in results between different doctors. It is concluded that if a reliable and consistent method of measuring quality of life in cancer patients is required, it must come from the patients themselves and not from their doctors and nurses.

show abstract

“…The Karnofsky Index, which is often used by clinicians to assess performance status (Clark & Fallowfield, 1986), has been shown to have a weak but positive relationship with the length of life remaining (Evans & McCarthy, 1985;Mor et al, 1984;Yates et al, 1980). However, the Index has been criticised because it is rated by clinicians, rather than patients, and large discrepancies have been reported between assessments made by clinicians and patient assessments of quality of life (Padilla et al, 1983). In addition, low reliability coefficients have been reported (Yates et al, 1980 (Clark & Fallowfield, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%