Visual functioning and quality of life in the subfoveal radiotherapy study (SFRADS): SFRADS report 2

Aims: To determine whether or not self reported visual functioning and quality of life in patients with choroidal neovascularisation caused by age related macular degeneration (AMD) is better in those treated with 12 Gy external beam radiotherapy in comparison with untreated subjects. Methods: A multicentre single masked randomised controlled trial of 12 Gy of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) delivered as 6x2 Gy fractions to the macula of an affected eye versus observation. Patients with AMD, aged 60 years or over, in three UK hospital units, who had subfoveal CNV and a visual acuity equal to or better than 6/60 (logMAR 1.0). Methods: Data from 199 eligible participants who were randomly assigned to 12 Gy teletherapy or observation were available for analysis. Visual function assessment, ophthalmic examination, and fundus fluorescein angiography were undertaken at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after study entry. To assess patient centred outcomes, subjects were asked to complete the Daily Living Tasks Dependent on Vision (DLTV) and the SF-36 questionnaires at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months after enrolment to the study. Cross sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted using arm of study as grouping variable. Regression analysis was employed to adjust for the effect of baseline co-variates on outcome at 12 months and 24 months. Results: Both control and treated subjects had significant losses in visual functioning as seen by a progressive decline in mean scores in the four dimensions of the DLTV. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control subjects in any of dimensions of the DLTV at 12 months or 24 months after study entry. Regression analysis confirmed that treatment status had no effect on the change in DLTV dimensional scores. Conclusions: The small benefits noted in clinical measures of vision in treated eyes did not translate into better self reported visual functioning in patients who received treatment when compared with the control arm. These findings have implications for the design of future clinical trials and studies.

The validity of the MacNew Quality of Life Questionnaire in heart disease.

Background A previous review suggested that the MacNew Quality of Life Questionnaire was the most appropriate disease-specific measure of health-related quality of life among people with ischaemic heart disease. However, there is ambiguity about the allocation of items to the three factors underlying the MacNew and the factor structure has not been confirmed previously among the people in the UK. Methods The MacNew Questionnaire and the SF-36 were administered to 117 newly admitted patients to a tertiary referral centre in Northern Ireland. All patients had been diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease. Results A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the factor structure of the MacNew and the model was found to be an inadequate fit of the data. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the items suggested that a five factor solution was more appropriate and this was validated by confirmatory factor analysis. This new structure also displayed strong evidence of concurrent validity when compared to the SF-36. Conclusion We recommend that researchers should submit scores obtained from items on the MacNew to secondary analyses after being grouped according to the factor structure proposed in this paper, in order to explore further the most appropriate grouping of items.

How well do elderly people complete individualised quality of life measures: an exploratory study.

This research note describes and discusses a study which investigated the feasibility of using an individualised approach to measure the quality of life (QoL) of a sample of older people who were in receipt of an early hospital discharge service. Most participants (86%) were able to identify areas of their lives which were important to them, rate their level of functioning on each of these areas and rank their life areas in order of importance. However, 39% were unable to quantify the relative importance of each area of life. Indeed, the majority (57%) of participants who were over 75 years old could not complete this “weighting” or evaluative stage. The results suggest that the phenomenological approach to measuring QoL may be employed successfully with older people but that the “weighting” system used by existing individualised QoL measures needs to be refined, especially when assessing people over 75.

Measuring the health-related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease.

Objectives—To inform researchers and clinicians about the most appropriate generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life for use among people with ischaemic heart disease. Methods—MEDLINE and BIDS were searched for research papers which contained a report of at least one of the three most common generic instruments or at least one of the five disease specific instruments used with ischaemic heart disease patients. Evidence for the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of these instruments was critically appraised. Results—Of the three generic measures—the Nottingham health profile, sickness impact profile, and short form 36 (SF-36)—the SF-36 appears to offer the most reliable, valid, and sensitive assessment of quality of life. However, a few of the SF-36 subscales lack a sufficient degree of sensitivity to detect change in a patient’s clinical condition. According to the best available evidence, the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire should be preferred to the Seattle angina questionnaire, the quality of life index cardiac version, the angina pectoris quality of life questionnaire, and the summary index. Overall, research on disease specific measures is sparse compared to the number of studies which have investigated generic measures. Conclusions—An assessment of the quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease should comprise a disease specific measure in addition to a generic measure. The SF-36 and the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire (version 2) are the most appropriate currently available generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life, respectively. Further research into the measurement of health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease is required in order to address the problems (such as lack of sensitivity to detect change) identified by the review.

Selecting a measure of health-related quality of life.

Quality of life is becoming recognized increasingly as an important outcome measure which needs to be considered by social workers. However, there does not appear to be a clear consensus about the definition of quality of life. In addition, social workers are likely to experience difficulties choosing and applying an appropriate instrument with which to measure quality of life because of the many available instruments purporting to assess quality of life. This paper discusses the definition of health-related quality of life and explains the main measurement properties of an instrument that must be appraised when considering whether or not an instrument is appropriate. The paper will assist social workers to make an informed choice about measures of health-related quality of life.

The adaptations of a quality of life questionnaire for routine use in clinical practice: the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire in Cystic Fibrosis.

The assessment of quality of life (QOL) is necessary to monitor the course of disease and to assess the effect of new and existing interventions in clinical practice. This will only be achieved if QOL can be measured accurately and routinely. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the methodology involved in the adaptation and shortening of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRDQ) in a population of adults with cystic fibrosis (CF). A single interviewer administered the CRDQ to a sample of 45 adult patients (32 males) with CF prior to assessment of spirometric measures of lung function. Those patients whose lung function was stable at the time of study, and who could attend for a retest within 14 days, were asked to complete the questionnaire at a subsequent visit (n=10). The average interval between visits was 7 days (range 5-14 days). Correlations between spirometry and CRDQ dimensions ranged from -0.003 to 0.426. The fatigue, emotion and mastery dimensions showed high internal consistency, and adequate construct validity. In the small number of patients suitable for retest, the results indicated that the dimensions exhibited adequate test retest reliability. In contrast low internal consistency was demonstrated for the dyspnoea dimension. The fatigue, emotion and mastery dimensions could be reduced, in terms of their number of items without a substantial loss in explanatory power. This study suggests that QOL measurement can be made convenient, and so more easily accessible for routine clinical assessment.

Generic, disease-specific and individualised approaches to measuring health-related quality of life among people with heart disease - a comparative analysis.

Increasing emphasis is being placed on the evaluation of health-related quality of life. However, there is no consensus on the definition of this concept and as a result there are a plethora of existing measurement instruments. Head-to-head comparisons of the psychometric properties of existing instruments are necessary to facilitate evidence-based decisions about which instrument should be chosen for routine use. Therefore, an individualised instrument (the modified Patient Generated Index), a generic instrument (the Short Form 36) and a disease-specific instrument (the Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire) were administered to patients with ischaemic heart disease (n=117) and the evidence for the validity, reliability and sensitivity of each instrument was examined and compared. The modified Patient Generated Index compared favourably with the other instruments but none of the instruments examined provided sound evidence for sensitivity to change. Therefore, any recommendation for the use of the individualised approach in the routine collection of health-related quality of life data in clinical practice must be conditional upon the submission of further evidence to support the sensitivity of such instruments.