We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Content comparison of quality of life questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review.
The objective of this study is to provide a content comparison of frequently used questionnaires that assess health-related quality of life (hrQOL) in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors. This systematic content comparison describes which specific areas of hr-QOL research are covered by each questionnaire. Thereby, it shall assist the clinician in the decision process of instrument selection depending on the content of the study question. As a reference, we chose the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF), which was adopted by the WHO in 2001. A systematic literature review identified current hrQOL questionnaires relevant for HNC. The concepts of functioning contained in each questionnaire were translated (linked") to the ICF according to standardized guidelines. Nine questionnaires were selected for further analyses: EORTC-QLQ (C30 + HN35), FACT (G + HN), UW_QOL, QOL-RTI, HN-QOL, PSS-HN, VHI, LORQ, XQ. Within the selected questionnaires, there are 474 concepts, matching 74 second-level ICF categories. The results are presented in tables, showing for each of the validated questionnaires, which of these 74 categories of functioning are addressed. In terms of diversification of content among the questionnaires, there are just eight categories that are used rather frequently and apply to at least five (out of nine) of the questionnaires: e110 Products for personal consumption (i.e., food, drugs), b510 ingestion function, b152 emotional function, b280 sensation of pain, b310 voice, d550 eating, b130 energy and drive function and d850 employment. This ICF-based content comparison provides detailed information on the content that is covered in each questionnaire and thereby assists questionnaire selection. The results question the assumption that HNC-specific questionnaires generally cover the same content. Depending on the study question, the population to be studied and the intervention, there is no unique ideal questionnaire. Compared with other types of qualitative review, the most important advantage of content comparison based on the ICF is the use of an external and independent reference.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app