Impact of counselling on quality of life and sleep in cancer patients

It has been acknowledged that poor quality of sleep significantly correlates with poor quality of life; evidence suggests that counselling has a positive impact not only on the cancer patient's quality of life, but also on family members and friends. The aim of this service evaluation was to determine if there was an improvement in clients’ quality of life and sleep patterns following counselling as offered by a local cancer charity. A total of 60 matched pre- and post-counselling questionnaires were completed and subjected to statistical analysis. When considering quality of life, in the domains of Role Emotional, Mental Health and Mental Component Summary Score, it can be concluded that counselling has a positive effect on emotional health and mental wellbeing. The mean total number of hours sleep per night significantly increased from 6 hours sleep per night at baseline to 6.8 hours sleep per night at the completion of counselling (p=0.005) showing clients gained an extra 48 minutes sleep per night. The improved emotional and mental wellbeing alongside the extra 48 minutes sleep per night provides evidence that there is a positive outcome for those patients and families who use counselling services. Nurses and other members of the multidisciplinary team should be encouraged to discuss supportive therapies with patients and those affected by cancer at all stages of the cancer trajectory, regardless of social status, gender or cancer type.

Meeting the Needs of Vulnerable Young Men: A Study of Service Provider Views

This article uses a qualitative approach to elicit the views of 31 professionals who provide services to vulnerable young men. The findings reveal six key themes following focus group interviews: (i) the importance of masculinity in explaining problematic behaviour; (ii) the misuse of alcohol and drugs; (iii) alienation and social isolation; (iv) concerns about suicide and self-harm; (v) the quality of existing services; and (vi) recommendations for changes to services. Service providers generally acknowledged the social context in explaining these behaviours and argued for enhanced services and a more developed skills base in working with vulnerable young men. 

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.

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.