Display options
Share it on

Ecancermedicalscience. 2010;4:187. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2010.187. Epub 2010 Aug 20.

The impact of decision models on self-perceived quality of life: a study on brain cancer patients.

Ecancermedicalscience

C Lucchiari, A Botturi, G Pravettoni

Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Studi Sociali e Politici, Università degli studi di Milano, Via Conservatorio 7, 20122 Milano, Italy.

PMID: 22276038 PMCID: PMC3234023 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2010.187

Abstract

Quality of life (QoL) is an increasingly important outcome measure in medicine. Health, in fact, is not only based on functional status but also on psychological and social well being. Since QoL is related to the patient's perception of their position in life in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns, the way in which the medical context is experienced may be critical. We then hypothesised that self-perceived QoL may be linked to unmet needs in information management and decision involvement. To analyse this hypothesis, we conducted a quantitative study on 84 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of primary high-grade glioma. The functional assessment of cancer therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) scales, the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale and the need evaluation questionnaire (NEQ) questionnaire were used, in order to measure quality-of-life dimension, mood and unmet needs. Patients were classified as having no need (cluster 1), a moderate need (cluster 2) or a high need (cluster 3) to be more involved in the clinical process.Our data confirmed previous studies in other clinical areas, showing that shared decision might contribute to a better adaptation process to the illness [1]. In fact, patients in cluster 1 showed a significant better self-perceived QoL, despite the lack of clinical differences between clusters. The study showed that patients satisfied with respect to decisional involvement seem to be able to better cope with their disease. Finally, the study suggests the need for a more attuned decision-making process in approaching clinical decisions. Physicians need to better understand patient preferences related to information and decision sharing.

References

  1. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Nov;61(10):2252-64 - PubMed
  2. Soc Sci Med. 2000 Aug;51(4):589-98 - PubMed
  3. J Neurosurg. 2000 Dec;93(6):917-26 - PubMed
  4. J Neurooncol. 2009 Dec;95(3):413-419 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2001 May 19;322(7296):1240-3 - PubMed
  6. J Support Oncol. 2008 Nov-Dec;6(8):383-91 - PubMed
  7. J Neurooncol. 1994;19(1):37-49 - PubMed
  8. Lancet Oncol. 2003 Jan;4(1):11-2 - PubMed
  9. Ann Oncol. 2000 Jan;11(1):31-7 - PubMed
  10. J Neurol. 2002 Aug;249(8):955-60 - PubMed
  11. Neuro Oncol. 2000 Oct;2(4):221-8 - PubMed
  12. J Neurooncol. 2006 Feb;76(3):283-91 - PubMed
  13. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Sep;12(4):299-318 - PubMed
  14. Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681-92 - PubMed
  15. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2001 Jun;22(3):175-80 - PubMed
  16. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:525-56 - PubMed
  17. Acta Pol Pharm. 2008 Nov-Dec;65(6):677-84 - PubMed
  18. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Sep;67(3):358-63 - PubMed
  19. Br J Neurosurg. 1999 Feb;13(1):46-51 - PubMed
  20. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1997 May;185(5):346-8 - PubMed
  21. Semin Oncol. 2000 Jun;27(3 Suppl 6):20-6 - PubMed
  22. Support Care Cancer. 1999 May;7(3):121-7 - PubMed
  23. Br J Psychol. 1992 Feb;83 ( Pt 1):133-45 - PubMed
  24. Semin Hematol. 1997 Jul;34(3 Suppl 2):13-9 - PubMed
  25. Eur Psychiatry. 2006 Apr;21(3):194-9 - PubMed

Publication Types