Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHopwood, Penelope
dc.contributor.authorHarvey, A
dc.contributor.authorDavies, J
dc.contributor.authorStephens, R J
dc.contributor.authorGirling, D J
dc.contributor.authorGibson, D
dc.contributor.authorParmar, M K
dc.date.accessioned2010-02-12T12:37:20Z
dc.date.available2010-02-12T12:37:20Z
dc.date.issued1998-01
dc.identifier.citationSurvey of the Administration of quality of life (QL) questionnaires in three multicentre randomised trials in cancer. The Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party the CHART Steering Committee. 1998, 34 (1):49-57 Eur. J. Canceren
dc.identifier.issn0959-8049
dc.identifier.pmid9624237
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00347-X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/91998
dc.description.abstractWe surveyed centres collaborating in two trials in lung cancer (LU12, LU13) and one in lung and head and neck cancer (CHART) to find out how QL questionnaires were being administered, with the aim of standardising procedures and improving compliance. Dedicated local trials staff were funded for CHART but not for the other trials. In all three trials, patients completed a Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) and a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at specified times. 17 of 22 LU12 centres, 9 of 11 LU13 and all 10 CHART centres returned survey forms. In LU12 and LU13, the category of staff responsible for questionnaires varied widely; in CHART, only research staff were involved. This led to more consistency in CHART centres in the administration and collection of questionnaires, and more frequent checking of forms. However, even the CHART administration, although better than in the other two trials, could not be regarded as standardised. All centres were equally affected by logistical problems. These embraced organisational deficits (e.g. unavailability of staff, lack of questionnaires) and patient-related factors (e.g. patient deemed to be too ill, had difficulty reading or left before completing the form). Patient refusals were an uncommon reason for non-compliance and patients were considered to be generally in favour of QL assessment. As a result of these findings, a number of measures have been put in place to increase standardisation of procedures and improve compliance. These include publishing guidelines for protocol writing, providing centres with guidelines for QL administration and information leaflets for patients, together with introducing staff training.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectHead and Neck Canceren
dc.subjectLung Canceren
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Small Cell
dc.subject.meshHead and Neck Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshHealth Surveys
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshLung Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshMulticenter Studies as Topic
dc.subject.meshPatient Compliance
dc.subject.meshPatient Satisfaction
dc.subject.meshQuality of Life
dc.subject.meshQuestionnaires
dc.subject.meshRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.titleSurvey of the Administration of quality of life (QL) questionnaires in three multicentre randomised trials in cancer. The Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party the CHART Steering Committee.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentCRC Psychological Medicine Group, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Canceren
html.description.abstractWe surveyed centres collaborating in two trials in lung cancer (LU12, LU13) and one in lung and head and neck cancer (CHART) to find out how QL questionnaires were being administered, with the aim of standardising procedures and improving compliance. Dedicated local trials staff were funded for CHART but not for the other trials. In all three trials, patients completed a Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) and a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at specified times. 17 of 22 LU12 centres, 9 of 11 LU13 and all 10 CHART centres returned survey forms. In LU12 and LU13, the category of staff responsible for questionnaires varied widely; in CHART, only research staff were involved. This led to more consistency in CHART centres in the administration and collection of questionnaires, and more frequent checking of forms. However, even the CHART administration, although better than in the other two trials, could not be regarded as standardised. All centres were equally affected by logistical problems. These embraced organisational deficits (e.g. unavailability of staff, lack of questionnaires) and patient-related factors (e.g. patient deemed to be too ill, had difficulty reading or left before completing the form). Patient refusals were an uncommon reason for non-compliance and patients were considered to be generally in favour of QL assessment. As a result of these findings, a number of measures have been put in place to increase standardisation of procedures and improve compliance. These include publishing guidelines for protocol writing, providing centres with guidelines for QL administration and information leaflets for patients, together with introducing staff training.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record