Gupta Digant, Grutsch James F, Lis Christopher G
Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Midwestern Regional Medical Center, Zion, IL 60099, USA.
J Soc Integr Oncol. 2008 Winter;6(1):13-8.
Health-related quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients cannot be adequately captured with a single instrument. We compared the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index (QLI). We hypothesized that there would be little overlap among their subscales. Baseline QoL data were collected from a consecutive series of 954 cancer patients treated at our center. Data from the two questionnaires were analyzed on a subscale basis using correlation analysis and the Bland-Altman method. The mean and standard deviations of the difference in QoL subscale scores were used to construct 95% limits of agreement among the subscales. Five hundred seventy-nine were females and 375 were males, with a median age of 52 years. There were poor to modest correlations and poor agreement among the subscales of the two instruments. For QLQ-C30 physical and QLI health, the correlation and limits of agreement were 0.6 and -22.2 to 59.8. For QLQ-C30 role and QLI health, the correlation and limits of agreement were 0.6 and -47.3 to 61.5. For QLQ-C30 social and QLI social, the correlation and limits of agreement were 0.2 and -78.2 to 50.2. Consequently, these instruments measure unrelated aspects of QoL and can give different conclusions.
单一工具无法充分反映癌症患者与健康相关的生活质量（QoL）。我们比较了欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量问卷（QLQ-C30）和费兰斯与鲍尔斯生活质量指数（QLI）。我们假设它们的子量表之间几乎没有重叠。从我们中心连续治疗的954例癌症患者中收集了基线QoL数据。使用相关性分析和布兰德-奥特曼方法在子量表基础上分析了两份问卷的数据。QoL子量表得分差异的均值和标准差用于构建子量表之间95%的一致性界限。其中579例为女性，375例为男性，中位年龄为52岁。两种工具的子量表之间相关性较差至中等，一致性也较差。对于QLQ-C30身体功能和QLI健康状况，相关性和一致性界限分别为0.6和-22.2至59.8。对于QLQ-C30角色功能和QLI健康状况，相关性和一致性界限分别为0.6和-47.3至61.5。对于QLQ-C30社会功能和QLI社会状况，相关性和一致性界限分别为0.2和-78.2至50.2。因此，这些工具测量的是QoL不相关的方面，可能会得出不同的结论。
