Spouse ratings of quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer of lower socioeconomic status: An assessment of feasibility, reliability, and validity

Urology

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 275-280

  Knight, Sara J ^a,b   Chmiel, Joan S ^b   Sharp, Lisa K ^b   Kuzel, Timothy ^a,b   Nadler, Robert B ^a,b   Fine, Robert ^c   Moran, Edgar M ^d   Sharifi, Roohollah ^a   Bennett, Charles L ^a,b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d VA LONG BEACH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTASIS; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY OF LIFE; RELIABILITY; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL STATUS; SPOUSE;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SPOUSES;

EID: 0035129241     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00934-1     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Measuring quality of life today; methodological aspects
2. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease; a review
3. Quality of life of oncology hospice patients; a comparison of patient and primary caregiver reports
4. Quality of life of homebound patients with advanced cancer; assessments by patients, family members, and oncologists
5. Relationship of caregiver reactions and depression to cancer patients' symptoms, functional states and depression-a longitudinal view
6. Patient-reported assessment versus performance-based tests
7. Substituted judgement; how accurate are proxy predictions?
8. Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?
9. The development of a method for assessing the quality of life of cancer patients
10. Observer-variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesaphageal cancer
11. Value of caregiver ratings in evaluating the quality of life of patients with cancer
12. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer
13. Assessing quality of life after stroke; the value and limitations of proxy ratings
14. Differences in urologist and patient assessments of health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer; results of the CaPSURE database
15. Quality of life in metastatic prostate cancer among men of lower socioeconomic status; feasibility and criterion-related validity of three measures
16. The Department of Veterans Affairs medical care system and the people it serves
17. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale; development and validation of the general measure
18. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30; a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology
19. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients; a concise QL-index for use by physicians
20. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma
21. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests
22. Proxy respondents in epidemiologic research
23. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures; statistics and strategies for evaluation
24. Quality of life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer
25. Patients with cancer and their spouse caregivers; perceptions of the illness experience
26. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status
27. Comparability of information provided by elderly cancer patients and surrogates regarding health and functional status, social network, and life events
28. Regular use of a verbal pain scale improves the understanding of oncology inpatient pain intensity
29. Quality of life in low-income patients with metastatic prostate cancer; divergent and convergent validity of three instruments