Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

19-03-2024

Measuring reconceptualization and reprioritization during France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown in women with and without a history of cancer: an adaptation of the SeiQol-DW and PGI

Auteurs: Charlotte Bauquier, Stéphéline Ginguené, Tanguy Leroy, Marjolaine Doumergue, Natacha Lebrun, Claire Della Vecchia, Renaud Mabire-Yon, Sarah Leveaux, Luis Sagaon-Teyssier, Marie Préau

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2024

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to provide a better understanding of the patient-perceived effects of France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown on the quality of life (QoL) of women affected by cancer, and to test an ad hoc measurement scale for evaluating quasi-individualized QoL. QoL was measured for both during (i.e., current) and before (i.e., retrospectively) the lockdown. Respondents were women registered on the research platform Seintinelles.

Methods

A tool for measuring quasi-individualized QoL was adapted from the SeiQol-DW and PGI. It was distributed as part of a larger online self-questionnaire to a sample of 1303 women with a history of cancer (i.e., former or current) and with no such history.

Results

Current and retrospective QoL scores were not significantly different between the two respondent groups. An analysis of reconceptualization and reprioritization revealed a cancer-specific effect: women with a history of cancer reconceptualized more, while women with no such history reprioritized more.

Conclusion

Our novel ad hoc quasi-qualitative tool made it possible to assess the QoL of women with a history of cancer, a particularly vulnerable population in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, it highlighted a difference in reconceptualization and reprioritization between this population and women with no such history.
vorige artikel Understanding Canadian stakeholders’ views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study
volgende artikel Correction: Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Relationship with children, family; Health and well-being of loved ones; Relationships with friends; Personal well-being and morale; Personal physical health; Hobbies, passions, entertainment; Autonomy, freedom, independence; Sentimental and/or sexual life; Social and cultural life; Professional life; Redesigning living environment; Domestic activities; Animal health and welfare; Involvement in associations / charities; Spiritual and/or religious life.
 
2
The ‘distance’ is the difference between the weight (i.e., level of importance) assigned by the participant to life domain X during the first lockdown and the level assigned to the same life domain X for before the lockdown (i.e., retrospectively). We chose to use the term distance because we were not interested in the direction (i.e., positive or negative) of change, but simply whether or not there was a change between both measurements. For example, irrespective of whether life domain X was weighted with the value 7 in the ‘current’ QoL measurement, but only 5 for the ‘retrospective’ QoL measurement, or vice versa (i.e., net difference or + 2 or − 2, respectively), the number 2 would be used for the distance in both cases.
 
3
As a result of this decision, the scale for calculating distance was changed. The initial Likert scale ranged from 1 to 7. When the minimum weighting given by a respondent to a life domain was 1, the life domains not chosen were given a weighting of 0. Accordingly, the new scale for calculating distance went from 0 to 7. Accordingly, when calculating the reprioritization score, the distance for the life domains—irrespective of their number—never chosen by a respondent (i.e., neither for the ‘current’ nor ‘retrospective’ QoL measurements) was zero.
 
Literatuur
1.
Fouques, D., Castro, D., Mouret, M., Julien-Sweerts, S., & Romo, L. (2021). Perceptions of the post first-lockdown era in the current covid-19 pandemic: Quantitative and qualitative survey of the French population. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 668961.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Gultekin, M., Ak, S., Ayhan, A., Strojna, A., Pletnev, A., Fagotti, A., et al. (2021). Perspectives, fears and expectations of patients with gynaecological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A pan-European study of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups (ENGAGe). Cancer Medicine, 10, 208–219.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Institut National du Cancer. (2020). Préconisations pour l’adaptation de l’offre de soins des établissements accueillant les patients atteints de cancer dans le contexte de l’épidémie de COVID-19.
4.
You, B., Ravaud, A., Canivet, A., Ganem, G., Giraud, P., Guimbaud, R., et al. (2020). The official French guidelines to protect patients with cancer against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Lancet Oncology, 21, 619–621.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Wettergren, L., Kettis-Lindblad, Å., Sprangers, M., & Ring, L. (2009). The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualised quality-of-life instrument: A systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 18, 737–746.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Wettergren, L., Hedlund Lindberg, M., Kettis, Å., Glimelius, B., & Ring, L. (2014). Comparison of two instruments for measurement of quality of life in clinical practice—A qualitative study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The patient-generated index. Medical Care., 32, 1109–1126.CrossRefPubMed
8.
McGee, H. M., O’Boyle, C. A., Hickey, A., O’Malley, K., & Joyce, C. R. B. (1991). Assessing the quality of life of the individual: The SEIQoL with a healthy and a gastroenterology unit population. Psychological Medicine, 21, 749–759.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2019). Advancing quality-of-life research by deepening our understanding of response shift: A unifying theory of appraisal. Quality of Life Research, 28, 2623–2630.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2004). Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Vanier, A., Oort, F. J., McClimans, L., Ow, N., Gulek, B. G., Böhnke, J. R., et al. (2021). Response shift in patient-reported outcomes: Definition, theory, and a revised model. Quality of Life Research, 30, 3309–3322.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 1507–1515.CrossRef
13.
Sprangers, M. A. G., Sawatzky, R., Vanier, A., Böhnke, J. R., Sajobi, T., Mayo, N. E., et al. (2023). Implications of the syntheses on definition, theory, and methods conducted by the response shift—In Sync Working Group. Quality of Life Research, 32, 2165–2178.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Della Vecchia, C., Girodet, M., Ginguené, S., Carpentier, C., Leroy, T., Siméone, A., et al. (2022). At the heart of the COVID-19 crisis: Perceived concerns of changes in long-term cancer care in French women with cancer. European J Cancer Care., 31, e13599.CrossRef
15.
Pannard, M., Bauquier, C., Bassoleil, L., Sablone, L., Jacob, G., Reyal, F., et al. (2020). Ces citoyen(nes) qui se portent volontaires pour participer aux recherches dans le champ du cancer—résultats du Baromètre Seintinelles 2018. Bulletin du Cancer, 107, 333–343.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Dijkers, M. P. (2003). Individualization in quality of life measurement: Instruments and approaches. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation., 84, S3-14.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Botella, M., Zenasni, F., Pocard, M., Gledill, J., & Rodary, C. (2007). Adaptation française du Patient Generated Index: Qualités métrologiques et limites pratiques: French adaptation of the patient generated index: Metric characteristics and practical limitations. Psycho Oncologie, 1, 131–140.CrossRef
18.
Stone, P. C., Murphy, R. F., Matar, H. E., & Almerie, M. Q. (2008). Measuring the individual quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 11, 390–396.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the Propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRef
20.
Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
21.
Hahn, E. D., & Soyer, R. (2005). Probit and logit models: differences in the multivariate realm. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1–12.
22.
De Haes, J. C. J. M., & Van Knippenberg, F. C. E. (1985). The quality of life of cancer patients: A review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine., 20, 809–817.CrossRef
23.
Bargon, C., Batenburg, M., van Stam, L., van der Molen, D. M., van Dam, I., van der Leij, F., et al. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life, physical and psychosocial wellbeing in breast cancer patients—A prospective, multicenter cohort study. European Journal of Cancer, 138, S17.CrossRefPubMedCentral
24.
Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health and Illness, 4, 167–182.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Epifanio, M. S., Andrei, F., Mancini, G., Agostini, F., Piombo, M. A., Spicuzza, V., et al. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures on quality of life among Italian general population. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, 289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Poder, T., Dufresne, E., He, J., Talba, L., & Da Silva, R. B. (2021). Qualité de vie reliée à la santé et confinement: analyse des effets et des facteurs de risque. International Journal of Health Preference Research, 1, 2–26.
27.
Ahmed, S., Sawatzky, R., Levesque, J.-F., Ehrmann-Feldman, D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2014). Minimal evidence of response shift in the absence of a catalyst. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2421–2430.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ahmed, S., Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hanley, J. A., & Cohen, S. R. (2005). The structural equation modeling technique did not show a response shift, contrary to the results of the then test and the individualized approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1125–1133.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 239–249.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Measuring reconceptualization and reprioritization during France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown in women with and without a history of cancer: an adaptation of the SeiQol-DW and PGI
Auteurs
Charlotte Bauquier
Stéphéline Ginguené
Tanguy Leroy
Marjolaine Doumergue
Natacha Lebrun
Claire Della Vecchia
Renaud Mabire-Yon
Sarah Leveaux
Luis Sagaon-Teyssier
Marie Préau
Publicatiedatum
19-03-2024
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03626-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2024

Health-related quality of life in patients with extremity bone sarcoma after surgical treatment: a systematic review

  • Review

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis

  • Open Access

Patient acceptable symptom state and treatment failure threshold values for work productivity and activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L in osteoarthritis

  • Open Access

Health-related quality of life and associated risk factors in patients with Multiple Osteochondromas: a cross-sectional study

  • Open Access

Quality of life among people living with mental illness and predictors in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Open Access
  • Review

Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

  • Open Access