By the same authors

From the same journal

Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients? / Cocks, K; Velikova, G; King, M T; Fayers, P M; Brown, J M.

In: European Journal of Cancer Care, Vol. 23, No. 2, 27.08.2013, p. 228-238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Cocks, K, Velikova, G, King, MT, Fayers, PM & Brown, JM 2013, 'Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients?', European Journal of Cancer Care, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12113

APA

Cocks, K., Velikova, G., King, M. T., Fayers, P. M., & Brown, J. M. (2013). Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients? European Journal of Cancer Care, 23(2), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12113

Vancouver

Cocks K, Velikova G, King MT, Fayers PM, Brown JM. Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients? European Journal of Cancer Care. 2013 Aug 27;23(2):228-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12113

Author

Cocks, K ; Velikova, G ; King, M T ; Fayers, P M ; Brown, J M. / Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients?. In: European Journal of Cancer Care. 2013 ; Vol. 23, No. 2. pp. 228-238.

Bibtex - Download

@article{8d52dd5b7fdf416e98f55d8a454052c4,
title = "Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients?",
abstract = "This qualitative study piloted a method for eliciting patient opinion on the size of group differences in quality of life (QOL) scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Using scenarios from published studies, patients were asked the differences in QOL they would expect between two groups of patients or a group of patients over time. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis used. Eleven breast cancer patients were interviewed. The final thematic framework consisted of three major themes: (1) their ability to use published data to judge the size of differences in QOL scores, (2) their ability to gain familiarity and understanding of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire in an interview situation and (3) their ability to understand and assess differences from a group of patients rather than on an individual basis. Patients felt able to understand the questionnaire and scoring. They provided an opinion on whether differences in QOL scores were trivial, small, medium or large. Patient perspectives were often based on their own experience of the disease and treatments and their opinions were varied. In order to estimate clinically meaningful differences from published literature, a larger number of patients with varied experiences would be required and a consensus process used to align opinions where possible.",
author = "K Cocks and G Velikova and King, {M T} and Fayers, {P M} and Brown, {J M}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2013",
month = aug,
day = "27",
doi = "10.1111/ecc.12113",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "228--238",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer Care",
issn = "0961-5423",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients?

AU - Cocks, K

AU - Velikova, G

AU - King, M T

AU - Fayers, P M

AU - Brown, J M

N1 - © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2013/8/27

Y1 - 2013/8/27

N2 - This qualitative study piloted a method for eliciting patient opinion on the size of group differences in quality of life (QOL) scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Using scenarios from published studies, patients were asked the differences in QOL they would expect between two groups of patients or a group of patients over time. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis used. Eleven breast cancer patients were interviewed. The final thematic framework consisted of three major themes: (1) their ability to use published data to judge the size of differences in QOL scores, (2) their ability to gain familiarity and understanding of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire in an interview situation and (3) their ability to understand and assess differences from a group of patients rather than on an individual basis. Patients felt able to understand the questionnaire and scoring. They provided an opinion on whether differences in QOL scores were trivial, small, medium or large. Patient perspectives were often based on their own experience of the disease and treatments and their opinions were varied. In order to estimate clinically meaningful differences from published literature, a larger number of patients with varied experiences would be required and a consensus process used to align opinions where possible.

AB - This qualitative study piloted a method for eliciting patient opinion on the size of group differences in quality of life (QOL) scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Using scenarios from published studies, patients were asked the differences in QOL they would expect between two groups of patients or a group of patients over time. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis used. Eleven breast cancer patients were interviewed. The final thematic framework consisted of three major themes: (1) their ability to use published data to judge the size of differences in QOL scores, (2) their ability to gain familiarity and understanding of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire in an interview situation and (3) their ability to understand and assess differences from a group of patients rather than on an individual basis. Patients felt able to understand the questionnaire and scoring. They provided an opinion on whether differences in QOL scores were trivial, small, medium or large. Patient perspectives were often based on their own experience of the disease and treatments and their opinions were varied. In order to estimate clinically meaningful differences from published literature, a larger number of patients with varied experiences would be required and a consensus process used to align opinions where possible.

U2 - 10.1111/ecc.12113

DO - 10.1111/ecc.12113

M3 - Article

C2 - 24033609

VL - 23

SP - 228

EP - 238

JO - European Journal of Cancer Care

JF - European Journal of Cancer Care

SN - 0961-5423

IS - 2

ER -