File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Patient-reported outcomes are associated with patient-oncologist agreement of performance status in a multi-ethnic Asian population

TitlePatient-reported outcomes are associated with patient-oncologist agreement of performance status in a multi-ethnic Asian population
Authors
KeywordsEQ-5D-5L
Breast cancer
Performance status
Patient-reported outcomes
FACT-B
Issue Date2014
Citation
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014, v. 22, n. 12, p. 3201-3208 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2014, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Purpose: This study aims to compare the performance status assessed by breast cancer patients and their oncologist and investigate the factors associated with the patient-oncologist disagreement in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of 270 female breast cancer patients in Singapore. Patients’ performance status was rated by the patients and their treating oncologists. Patients were also asked to complete two instruments regarding their health status and health-related quality of life. The proportions of patients with assessment of performance status the same as and different from their oncologist were calculated. The level of agreement was quantified by Kappa statistics together with the confidence interval (CI). Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to examine potential factors associated with the patient-oncologist disagreement. Results: Approximately half (136/270) of the patients agreed with the oncologist in assessing performance status. Among the disagreeing half, 48 (17.8 %) patients rated better and 86 (31.9 %) poorer than the oncologists. The unweighted and quadratic-weighted Kappa statistics were, respectively, 0.21 (95 % CI = 0.13 to 0.29) and 0.34 (95 % CI = 0.26 to 0.42). Multivariable multinomial logistic regressions showed that outpatient, language used, and evidence of disease were associated with patients’ better assessment than the oncologists, while age, physical well-being, and pain/discomfort were associated with patients’ poorer assessment. Conclusions: The patient-oncologist agreement was weak to moderate. When discrepant, patients tended to rate themselves worse than the oncologists assessed. Poorer assessment rated by patients was associated with their physical well-being. Patients who self-rated poorer may require further evaluation of any unobserved symptoms.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/220870
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.535
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.267

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLee, Chun Fan-
dc.contributor.authorNg, Raymond-
dc.contributor.authorLuo, Nan-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Yin Bun-
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-22T09:04:40Z-
dc.date.available2015-10-22T09:04:40Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationSupportive Care in Cancer, 2014, v. 22, n. 12, p. 3201-3208-
dc.identifier.issn0941-4355-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/220870-
dc.description.abstract© 2014, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Purpose: This study aims to compare the performance status assessed by breast cancer patients and their oncologist and investigate the factors associated with the patient-oncologist disagreement in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of 270 female breast cancer patients in Singapore. Patients’ performance status was rated by the patients and their treating oncologists. Patients were also asked to complete two instruments regarding their health status and health-related quality of life. The proportions of patients with assessment of performance status the same as and different from their oncologist were calculated. The level of agreement was quantified by Kappa statistics together with the confidence interval (CI). Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to examine potential factors associated with the patient-oncologist disagreement. Results: Approximately half (136/270) of the patients agreed with the oncologist in assessing performance status. Among the disagreeing half, 48 (17.8 %) patients rated better and 86 (31.9 %) poorer than the oncologists. The unweighted and quadratic-weighted Kappa statistics were, respectively, 0.21 (95 % CI = 0.13 to 0.29) and 0.34 (95 % CI = 0.26 to 0.42). Multivariable multinomial logistic regressions showed that outpatient, language used, and evidence of disease were associated with patients’ better assessment than the oncologists, while age, physical well-being, and pain/discomfort were associated with patients’ poorer assessment. Conclusions: The patient-oncologist agreement was weak to moderate. When discrepant, patients tended to rate themselves worse than the oncologists assessed. Poorer assessment rated by patients was associated with their physical well-being. Patients who self-rated poorer may require further evaluation of any unobserved symptoms.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofSupportive Care in Cancer-
dc.subjectEQ-5D-5L-
dc.subjectBreast cancer-
dc.subjectPerformance status-
dc.subjectPatient-reported outcomes-
dc.subjectFACT-B-
dc.titlePatient-reported outcomes are associated with patient-oncologist agreement of performance status in a multi-ethnic Asian population-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00520-014-2336-7-
dc.identifier.pmid24986203-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84929940340-
dc.identifier.volume22-
dc.identifier.issue12-
dc.identifier.spage3201-
dc.identifier.epage3208-
dc.identifier.eissn1433-7339-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats