Use of electronic quality of life applications in cancer research and clinical practice

References

• Ganz PA. Quality of life and the patient with cancer. Individual and policy implications. Cancer 74 (Suppl. 4), 1445–1452 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Kahn KL, Malin JL, Adams J, Ganz PA. Developing a reliable, valid, and feasible plan for quality-of-care measurement for cancer. How should we measure? Med Care. 40(6), 111–173 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• WHO Publication. Constitution of the WHO Fifth Edition. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland (1952).
   Google Scholar
• Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 196,129–136 (1977).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenfield S, Nelson EC. Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings. Med Cate 30 (Suppl.), M523—M541 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Velikova G, Stark D, Selby P Quality of life instruments in oncology. Eur. j Cancer 35(11), 1571–1580 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Nall Cancer Inst. 85(5), 365–736 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al . The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol 11(3), 570–579 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Coates A, Porzsolt F, Osoba D. Quality of life in oncology practice: prognostic value of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in patients with advanced malignancy. Eur. j Cancer 33(7), 1025–1030 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Dancey J, Zee B, Osoba D et al . Quality of life scores: an independent prognostic variable in a general population of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Qual Life Res. 6(2), 151–158 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Hopwood P, Harvey A, Girling DJ, Machin D, Stephens R. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials — guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the UK Medical Research Council experience. MRC Cancer Trials Office. Eur j Cancer 33(1), 20–28 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fallowfield L, Ratcliffe D, Jenkins V et al. Psychiatric morbidity and its recognition by doctors in patients with cancer. Br. Cancer 84,1011–1015 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Passik SD, Dugan W McDonald MV et al Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer. j Clin. Oncol 16,1594–1600 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland JC. Cancer's psychological challenges. Sel. A117.275,158–161 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network practice guidelines for the management of psychosocial distress. Oncology13, 113–147 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lames FB. Doctor—patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc. ScL Med 40, 903–918 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr KN. Applications of health status assessment measures in clinical practice. Overview of the third conference on advances in health status assessment. Med Care 30 (Suppl. 5), MS1—M514 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Brundage M, I is A, Be4ak A et al. Cancer patients' preferences for communicating clinical trial quality of life information: a qualitative study. Qual Life ReS:12,395-404 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Buxton J, White M, Osoba D. Patients' experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 7, 513–517 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Taenzer PA, Speca M, Atkinson MJ et al Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Practice 5, 168–175 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB et al Automated collection of quality of life data: a comparison of paper and computer-touchscreen questionnaires. J. Clin. Oncol 17,998–1007 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allenby A, Matthews J, Beresford J, McLachlan SA. The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. Eur. Cancer Care 11(4), 245–253 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cull A, Gould A, House A et al Validating automated screening for pscyhological distress by means of computer touch-screens for use in routine oncology practice. Br. Cancer85, 1842–1849 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Hahn EA, Cella D, Dobrez D et al The talking touchscreen: a new approach to outcomes assessment in low literacy. fiychooncology13(2), 86–95 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayliss MS, Dewey JE, Dunlap I et al A study of the feasibility of Internet administration of a computerized health survey: the headache impact test (HIT). Oral. Life Res. 12(8), 953–961 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bush NE, Moinpour CM, Donaldson GW, Haberman MR. Feasibility of very frequent web-based QOL home self-assessment after HSCT (Hematological Stem Cell Transplantation). Abstract 1103 presented at The 10th Annual Conference of ISOQOL (International Society for Quality of Life Research), November 12–15, Prague, Czech Republic (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Yount S, Davies K, Khan S et al Real-time symptom monitoring of patients with advanced lung cancer. Abstract 1632S, presented at The 10th Annual Conference of ISOQOL (fnternational Society for Quality of Life Research), November 12–15, Prague, Czech Republic (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theoty. Thin] Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NY, USA (1994).
   Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual- patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Oral. Life Res. 4,293–307 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA. Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century Ann. Intern Med. 127(8), 743–750 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Cella DE Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qua'. Life Res. 6(6), 595–600 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, Bode RK, Heinemann AW. Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: an illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Qua'. Life Res. 12(5), 485–501 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjomer JB et al Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qua'. Life]es. 12(8), 935–952 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Wright EP, Selby PJ, Crawford M et al Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice. J. Clin Chrol. 21,374–382 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubenstein LV, Calkins DR, Young RT et al Improving patient function: a randomized trial of functional disability screening, Ann. Intern. Med 111,836–842 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Rubenstein LV, McCoy JM, Cope DW et al Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. J. Gen. Intern Med 10,607-614 (1995). Randomized study which incorporates management plans in response to functional status screening.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner AK, Ehrenberg BL, Tran TA, Bungay KM, Cynn DJ, Rogers WH. Patient-based health status measurement in clinical practice: a study of its impact on epilepsy patients' care. Qua'. Life Res. 6, 329–341 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J. Eva'. Clin. Prac. 5,401–416 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •• Good systematic review.
   Google Scholar
• Espallargues M, Valderas JM, Alonso J. Provision of feedback on perceived health status to healthcare professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med. Care 38,175–186 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• •• Comprehensive systematic review of the literature.
   Google Scholar
• Chang CH, Cella D, Masters GA et al Real-time clinical application of quality-of-life assessment in advanced lung cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer 4(2), 104–109 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Detmar SB, Aaronson NK. Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. Eur: J. Cancer 34,1181–1186 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, Selby PJ. Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor—patient interactions in oncology. BE Cancer86(1), 51–59 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Weyer LD, Aaronson NK. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient—physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. /AIWA 288, 3027–3034 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Randomized trial in oncology suggestingbenefits from quality of life (Q01) feedback to physicians.
   Google Scholar
• Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB et al Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being — a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol 22(4), 714–724 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• •Randomized trial in oncology showing improvement in patient well-being from using electronic QOL questionnaires.
   Google Scholar
• McLachlan SA, Allenby A, Matthemws J et al. Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer.' Clin °rico'. 19,4117–4125 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •A randomized trial of a single electronic QOL completion.
   Google Scholar
• Taenzer P, Bultz BD, Carlson LE et al Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychoonco1ogy9, 203–213 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Bezjak A, Ng P, Skeel RT, DePetrillo AD, Comis R, Taylor KM. Oncologists' use of quality of life information: results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Oral Life Res. 10,1–13 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer KB, Espindle D, DeGiacomo JM, Jenuleson CS, Kurtin PS, Davies AR. Monitoring dialysis patients' health status. Arm j Kidney Dis. 24,267–279 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Weyer LD, Aaronson NK. Role of health-related quality of life in palliative chemotherapy treatment decisions. j Clin. Oncol 20,1056–1062 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• •Unique analysis of the limited role of patient QOL in palliative chemotherapy.
   Google Scholar
• Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in healthcare. JAIVIA 16,289(15), 1969–1975 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• ••Excellent overview on the strategies forchanging health care and clinical practice.
   Google Scholar
• Deyo RA, Carter WB. Strategies for improving and expanding the application of health status measures in clinical settings. A researcher—developer viewpoint. Med Care 30(Suppl.), M5176—M5186 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Grol R. Personal paper. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BE Med. J. 315,418–421 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• ••Good theoretical review of the approachesto changing medical practice.
   Google Scholar