IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v32y1991i9p981-987.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Underreporting by cancer patients: The case of response-shift

Author

Listed:
  • Breetvelt, I.S.
  • Van Dam, F.S.A.M.

Abstract

There are a lot of studies in which self-report questionnaires are used, showing that cancer patients do not have a lower quality of life than the normal healthy population. This seems to be in contrast with the results of studies in which more extensive interviews have been used and to the everyday experience of physicians, nurses and other caretakers. This phenomenon of underreporting seems to hold true also for other patient groups. Judgment theories explain how the perception of quality of life arises. These theories indicate how the conceptualization of the dimension to be measured, changes under the influence of a (highly significant) life event, such as getting a life threatening disease. These theories hold that there will be a concurrent change in the internalized standard on whoch the patients base their perception. Thus a real effect, for example a decrease in quality of life as a result of cancer, can be obscured totally. Until an empirically proven solution to this problem has been found, we recommend that answers in questionnaires concerned with quality of life, psychological distress and the like should be approached with due caution.

Suggested Citation

  • Breetvelt, I.S. & Van Dam, F.S.A.M., 1991. "Underreporting by cancer patients: The case of response-shift," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 981-987, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:9:p:981-987
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(91)90156-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2004. "Testing for Utility Interdependence in Marriage: Evidence from Panel Data," Economic Research Papers 269599, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    2. Byela Tibesigwa & Martine Visser & Brennan Hodkinson, 2016. "Effects of Objective and Subjective Income Comparisons on Subjective Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 361-389, August.
    3. Stéphane Faury & Jérôme Foucaud, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review on reporting of methods in randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Paul Dolan & Henry Lee & Tessa Peasgood, 2012. "Losing Sight of the Wood for the Trees," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 1035-1049, November.
    5. Sharpe, Louise & Curran, Leah, 2006. "Understanding the process of adjustment to illness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 1153-1166, March.
    6. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:9:p:981-987. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.