IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i9p1188-1195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of life in palliative care cancer patients: a literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Hubert R. Jocham
  • Theo Dassen
  • Guy Widdershoven
  • Ruud Halfens

Abstract

Aims and objectives. This review of the literature intended to get insight into the international standards of quality of life assessment in palliative care, the conceptual and research literature addressing illness related quality of life and an examination of how nurse researchers define and assess this concept in the context of terminally ill cancer patients. Clearly stated goals for measuring quality of life as well as an understanding of the pragmatic and theoretical explanations for current trends in quality of life measurement are fundamental to this focus. Background. Most clinicians and researchers agree that the primary goal of palliative care is to optimize the quality of life of patients with advanced incurable diseases through control of physical symptoms and attention to the patient's psychological, social and spiritual needs. Palliative care therefore is the achievement of the best quality of life for patients and their families. Consequently, the outcomes of care should be measured in terms of the extent to which this goal is achieved. Quality of life is difficult to define and measure; it is a multidimensional, dynamic and subjective concept. During the past decade, multidisciplinary research measuring the impact of cancer and its treatment on the quality of people's lives escalated rapidly in international literature but not in the German speaking European countries. This international escalation was accompanied by a proliferation of measurement strategies and tools. Nursing shared this interest and began to generate substantive research of the phenomenon. In the oncology and palliative care nursing societies quality of life and numerous closely related areas of symptom management rank among the highest research priorities. Method. This paper examines nursing literature published between 1990 and 2004, retrieved through a computer review of MEDLINE and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The review includes reports that systematically describe or measure the quality of life of people with a terminal cancer in palliative care as a variable of interest. This article also describes conceptual and operational definitions of quality of life and explores the implicit and explicit goals of research. Results. Quality of life is a concept relevant to the discipline of nursing. Nurses, especially oncology and palliative care nurses, actively contributed to the development of the quality of life concept through instrument development and population description. Conclusion. Nurses working in German palliative care settings do change the quality of life of patients they care for, but there are no systematic standards of assessing these outcomes. Relevance to clinical practice. There are challenges related to measuring quality of life in patient‐focused palliative care and research. Systematic quality of life assessment in all palliative care settings will establish quality assurance and the further development of this very young discipline in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubert R. Jocham & Theo Dassen & Guy Widdershoven & Ruud Halfens, 2006. "Quality of life in palliative care cancer patients: a literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(9), pages 1188-1195, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:9:p:1188-1195
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01274.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01274.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01274.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sheila Payne, 2006. "Commentary on Jocham HR, Dassen T, Widdershoven G & Halfens R (2006) Quality of life in palliative care cancer patients: a literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing 15, 1188–1195," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(11), pages 1469-1470, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    2. Yiyin Cao & Haofei Li & Ling Jie Cheng & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler & David Cella & Hongjuan Yu & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2024. "A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    4. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    5. SeungJin Bae & Eun Bae & Sang Lim, 2014. "Sourcing Quality-of-Life Weights Obtained from Previous Studies: Theory and Reality in Korea," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 141-150, June.
    6. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    7. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & John E. Brazier & Donna Rowen & Michael Barkham, 2013. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 381-395, April.
    10. Maike Stolz & Christian Albus & Manfred E. Beutel & Hans-Christian Deter & Kurt Fritzsche & Christoph Herrmann-Lingen & Matthias Michal & Katja Petrowski & Joram Ronel & Jobst-Hendrik Schultz & Wolfga, 2023. "Assessment of health-related quality of life in individuals with depressive symptoms: validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1297-1307, November.
    11. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond & Anthony Scott, 2013. "Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-171, February.
    12. Desirée Vos-Vromans & Silvia Evers & Ivan Huijnen & Albère Köke & Minou Hitters & Nieke Rijnders & Menno Pont & André Knottnerus & Rob Smeets, 2017. "Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2014. "Effect of Adding a Sleep Dimension to the EQ-5D Descriptive System," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 42-53, January.
    14. Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey A. Young, 2011. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index for a 5-Dimensional Health State Classification for Asthma Derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 281-291, March.
    15. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    16. John Brazier & Carolyn Czoski-Murray & Jennifer Roberts & Martin Brown & Tara Symonds & Con Kelleher, 2008. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Index from a Condition-Specific Measure: The King's Health Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, January.
    17. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2010. "Preference‐based condition‐specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 125-129, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:9:p:1188-1195. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.