目的 比较健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)和欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织肿瘤肺癌患者生存质量量表(the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 Questionnaire,E...目的 比较健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)和欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织肿瘤肺癌患者生存质量量表(the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 Questionnaire,EORTC QLQ-LC43)在肺癌患者生活质量测定中的应用效果。方法 选取2020年9月—2022年6月158例肺癌患者作为研究对象,分别采用SF-36量表和EORTC QLQ-LC43量表调查受试对象的生活质量,采用Pearson线性相关性分析比较两种量表不同维度评分之间的相关性,以Karnofsky评分(KPS评分)功能状态评分作为效标,比较两种生存质量量表的相关性及效度。结果 SF-36量表总克朗巴赫系数为0.766,分量表克朗巴赫系数为0.493~0.849。SF-36量表的躯体功能、躯体角色、躯体疼痛、情感职能、社会活动、一般健康等6个分量表分别与EORTC QLQ-LC43量表的躯体功能、角色功能、疼痛、情绪功能、社会功能、整体生活质量的6个分量表对应,其相关系数为0.784~0.842,相关性差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。上述对应的分量表具有中等程度的一致性(Kappa值> 0.4)。不同临床分期分组中,肺癌患者SF-36各个维度得分与肿瘤分期显著相关,肿瘤分期越晚,生存质量得分越低(P<0.001)。肺癌患者SF-36各个维度得分与患者的体力状态得分显著相关,体力状态越差,生存质量得分越低(P <0.001)。结论 与EORTC QLQ-LC43量表相比,SF-36量表在评价肺癌患者生活质量方面具有较高的一致性和区分能力,可以作为EORTC QLQ-LC43量表的替代。展开更多
目的探讨康复期锻炼对乳腺癌患者生命质量的影响。方法采用横断面研究方法,整群抽样上海癌症康复俱乐部1 956名女性乳腺癌康复期患者进行问卷调查,调查问卷采用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生命质量量表(quality of life questionnaire-core ...目的探讨康复期锻炼对乳腺癌患者生命质量的影响。方法采用横断面研究方法,整群抽样上海癌症康复俱乐部1 956名女性乳腺癌康复期患者进行问卷调查,调查问卷采用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生命质量量表(quality of life questionnaire-core 30,EORTC QLQ-C30)和乳腺癌生存质量量表(quality of life questionnaire-breast cancer module 23,QLQ-BR23)。结果 QLQ-BR23的信度和效度分别为0.898和0.904,EORTC QLQ-C30的信度和效度分别为0.988和0.989;对于QLQ-BR23量表,康复锻炼、锻炼次数和生命质量均无统计学意义。但是参与康复锻炼和锻炼次数≥5次/周患者的功能症状总得分高于未参加康复锻炼和康复锻炼<5次/周患者。对于EORTC QLQ-C30量表,通过调整社会人口学等因素,参加康复锻炼患者的躯体功能及总体健康状况得分均显著高于不参加体育锻炼患者(P<0.05,PAdjusted<0.05);康复锻炼≥5次/周患者的5个功能维度及总体健康状况得分均高于康复锻炼<5次/周患者,但只有躯体功能差异有统计学意义(P<0.05,PAdjusted<0.05)。结论参加康复锻炼的乳腺癌患者总体生命质量高于未参加锻炼者,康复锻炼对提高乳腺癌患者的生命质量有积极影响。展开更多
AIM To assess the validity and reliability of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) in Chinese patients with colorectal canc...AIM To assess the validity and reliability of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) in Chinese patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS From March 2014 to January 2015, 356 patients with CRC from four different hospitals in China were enrolled in the study, and all patients self-administered the EORTC QLQ-CR29 and the quality of life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Evaluation of the scores was based on the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). The reliability and validity of the questionnaires were assessed by Cronbach's proportional to coefficient, the Spearman correlation test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS The EORTC QLQ-CR29 showed satisfactory reliability (proportional to > 0.7), although the urinary frequency and blood and mucus in stool dimensions had only moderate reliability (proportional to = 0.608). The multitrait scaling analyses showed good convergent (r > 0.4) and discriminant validity. Significant differences were obtained for each item in the different KPS subgroups (KPS <= 80; KPS > 80). Body image and most single- item dimensions showed statistically significant differences in patients with a stoma compared with the rest of the patients. CONCLUSION The EORTC QLQ-CR29 exhibits high validity and reliability in Chinese patients with CRC, and can therefore be recommended as a valuable tool for the assessment of quality of life in these patients.展开更多
Objective: The aims of this cross-sectional descriptive study were to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of the lung cancer patients and to investigate differences in QoL with respect to general and medical characteri...Objective: The aims of this cross-sectional descriptive study were to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of the lung cancer patients and to investigate differences in QoL with respect to general and medical characteristics. Methods: Structured questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13) were used among 106 consecutive lung cancer patients for data collection during 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec 2002. The t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare differences of QoL between the factors at a 5% level of significance. Results: The study revealed that the quality of life of the lung cancer patients were worse than reference value. The young, male and married patient groups had better QoL. Patients with lower education or income had worse QoL. Small cell lung cancer patients reported poorer QoL than non-small cell lung cancer patients. The quality of life in patients at late stage or with metastasis had worse QoL. The treatments could worsen the quality of life. When the outcomes of the four treatments were compared, the surgery group displayed the best quality of life and the combined treatment group displayed the worst quality of life. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed important ramifications for clinicians, researchers and policy-makers.展开更多
文摘目的 比较健康调查简表(the MOS item short from health survey,SF-36)和欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织肿瘤肺癌患者生存质量量表(the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 Questionnaire,EORTC QLQ-LC43)在肺癌患者生活质量测定中的应用效果。方法 选取2020年9月—2022年6月158例肺癌患者作为研究对象,分别采用SF-36量表和EORTC QLQ-LC43量表调查受试对象的生活质量,采用Pearson线性相关性分析比较两种量表不同维度评分之间的相关性,以Karnofsky评分(KPS评分)功能状态评分作为效标,比较两种生存质量量表的相关性及效度。结果 SF-36量表总克朗巴赫系数为0.766,分量表克朗巴赫系数为0.493~0.849。SF-36量表的躯体功能、躯体角色、躯体疼痛、情感职能、社会活动、一般健康等6个分量表分别与EORTC QLQ-LC43量表的躯体功能、角色功能、疼痛、情绪功能、社会功能、整体生活质量的6个分量表对应,其相关系数为0.784~0.842,相关性差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。上述对应的分量表具有中等程度的一致性(Kappa值> 0.4)。不同临床分期分组中,肺癌患者SF-36各个维度得分与肿瘤分期显著相关,肿瘤分期越晚,生存质量得分越低(P<0.001)。肺癌患者SF-36各个维度得分与患者的体力状态得分显著相关,体力状态越差,生存质量得分越低(P <0.001)。结论 与EORTC QLQ-LC43量表相比,SF-36量表在评价肺癌患者生活质量方面具有较高的一致性和区分能力,可以作为EORTC QLQ-LC43量表的替代。
文摘目的探讨康复期锻炼对乳腺癌患者生命质量的影响。方法采用横断面研究方法,整群抽样上海癌症康复俱乐部1 956名女性乳腺癌康复期患者进行问卷调查,调查问卷采用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生命质量量表(quality of life questionnaire-core 30,EORTC QLQ-C30)和乳腺癌生存质量量表(quality of life questionnaire-breast cancer module 23,QLQ-BR23)。结果 QLQ-BR23的信度和效度分别为0.898和0.904,EORTC QLQ-C30的信度和效度分别为0.988和0.989;对于QLQ-BR23量表,康复锻炼、锻炼次数和生命质量均无统计学意义。但是参与康复锻炼和锻炼次数≥5次/周患者的功能症状总得分高于未参加康复锻炼和康复锻炼<5次/周患者。对于EORTC QLQ-C30量表,通过调整社会人口学等因素,参加康复锻炼患者的躯体功能及总体健康状况得分均显著高于不参加体育锻炼患者(P<0.05,PAdjusted<0.05);康复锻炼≥5次/周患者的5个功能维度及总体健康状况得分均高于康复锻炼<5次/周患者,但只有躯体功能差异有统计学意义(P<0.05,PAdjusted<0.05)。结论参加康复锻炼的乳腺癌患者总体生命质量高于未参加锻炼者,康复锻炼对提高乳腺癌患者的生命质量有积极影响。
基金Supported by Science&Technology Innovation Commission of Shenzhen(to Lin JB)No.201404113000346 and No.JCYJ20140411150916744+1 种基金the Science &Technology Project of Shenzhen Longgang District,No.201406063001007 and No.YLWS20140606101914846the Science &Technology Project of Shenzhen Longgang District,No.20160607153104624(to Zhang YF)
文摘AIM To assess the validity and reliability of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) in Chinese patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS From March 2014 to January 2015, 356 patients with CRC from four different hospitals in China were enrolled in the study, and all patients self-administered the EORTC QLQ-CR29 and the quality of life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Evaluation of the scores was based on the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). The reliability and validity of the questionnaires were assessed by Cronbach's proportional to coefficient, the Spearman correlation test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS The EORTC QLQ-CR29 showed satisfactory reliability (proportional to > 0.7), although the urinary frequency and blood and mucus in stool dimensions had only moderate reliability (proportional to = 0.608). The multitrait scaling analyses showed good convergent (r > 0.4) and discriminant validity. Significant differences were obtained for each item in the different KPS subgroups (KPS <= 80; KPS > 80). Body image and most single- item dimensions showed statistically significant differences in patients with a stoma compared with the rest of the patients. CONCLUSION The EORTC QLQ-CR29 exhibits high validity and reliability in Chinese patients with CRC, and can therefore be recommended as a valuable tool for the assessment of quality of life in these patients.
文摘Objective: The aims of this cross-sectional descriptive study were to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of the lung cancer patients and to investigate differences in QoL with respect to general and medical characteristics. Methods: Structured questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13) were used among 106 consecutive lung cancer patients for data collection during 1 Jan 2002 to 31 Dec 2002. The t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare differences of QoL between the factors at a 5% level of significance. Results: The study revealed that the quality of life of the lung cancer patients were worse than reference value. The young, male and married patient groups had better QoL. Patients with lower education or income had worse QoL. Small cell lung cancer patients reported poorer QoL than non-small cell lung cancer patients. The quality of life in patients at late stage or with metastasis had worse QoL. The treatments could worsen the quality of life. When the outcomes of the four treatments were compared, the surgery group displayed the best quality of life and the combined treatment group displayed the worst quality of life. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed important ramifications for clinicians, researchers and policy-makers.
