Mehanna H M, Morton R P
Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, the Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
J Laryngol Otol. 2006 Oct;120(10):861-4. doi: 10.1017/S0022215106001411. Epub 2006 May 17.
To quantify and qualify the use of quality of life (QOL) measures by head and neck cancer clinicians and to identify any impediments to the use of these measures.
Questionnaire survey of members of the Australia and New Zealand Head and Neck Society.
One hundred and twenty-eight of 187 (68.5 per cent) responded. Only 43 (34 per cent) had ever used a QOL questionnaire (QLQ), and only 17 (13 per cent) were currently using one. Impediments to QLQ use included clinicians' perceptions that QLQs were too time-consuming and conferred no proven benefit for clinical management. Nevertheless, 113 (88 per cent) respondents indicated willingness to use a minimum core QLQ--for routine clinical use and for research--but indicated a preference for a short (10-15 questions), quick (less than 10 minutes) questionnaire.
Most head and neck cancer clinicians did not use a QOL measure routinely, with impediments to routine use being mainly clinician-based. Most respondents would use a minimum core QOL measure, especially if it were a short, quick consensus questionnaire.
量化并鉴定头颈癌临床医生对生活质量(QOL)测量方法的使用情况,并确定使用这些测量方法的任何障碍。
对澳大利亚和新西兰头颈协会成员进行问卷调查。
187名成员中有128名(68.5%)做出回应。只有43名(34%)曾使用过生活质量问卷(QLQ),目前只有17名(13%)正在使用。使用QLQ的障碍包括临床医生认为QLQ耗时过长且对临床管理没有已证实的益处。尽管如此,113名(88%)受访者表示愿意使用一份最低限度的核心QLQ——用于常规临床和研究——但表示倾向于一份简短(10 - 15个问题)、快速(少于10分钟)的问卷。
大多数头颈癌临床医生没有常规使用生活质量测量方法,常规使用的障碍主要基于临床医生。大多数受访者愿意使用一份最低限度的核心生活质量测量方法,特别是如果它是一份简短、快速的共识问卷。