Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33783624›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Measuring quality of life in people living with and beyond cancer in the UK.

Elisavet Moschopoulou, Jennifer Deane, Morvwen Duncan, Sharif A Ismail, Sophie Moriarty, Shah-Jalal Sarker, Peter White, Ania Korszun, SURECAN Development Grant investigators

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quality of life trajectories in breast cancer survivors up to one year after treatment: a prospective study in a lower-middle-income country.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elisavet MoschopoulouInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jennifer DeanePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Morvwen DuncanCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Sharif A IsmailDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Sophie MoriartyCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Shah-Jalal SarkerResearch Department of Medical Education, UCL Medical School, UCL, London, UK.
Peter WhiteCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Ania KorszunCentre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. a.korszun@qmul.ac.uk.
SURECAN Development Grant investigators

Funding

Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-DG-1212-10014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate measure of quality of life (QoL) for patients living with and beyond cancer.

methodsOne hundred eighty-two people attending cancer clinics in Central London at various stages post-treatment, completed a series of QoL measures: FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30 , IOCv2 (positive and negative subscales) and WEMWBS, a wellbeing measure. These measures were chosen as the commonest measures used in previous research. Correlation tests were used to assess the association between scales. Participants were also asked about pertinence and ease of completion.

resultsThere was a significant positive correlation between the four domain scores of the two health-related QoL measures (.32 ≤ r ≤ .72, P < .001), and a significant large negative correlation between these and the negative IOCv2 subscale scores (- .39 ≤ r ≤ - .63, P < .001). There was a significant moderate positive correlation between positive IOCv2 subscale and WEMWBS scores (r = .35, P < .001). However, neither the FACT-G nor the EORTC showed any significant correlation with the positive IOCv2 subscale. Participants rated all measures similarly with regards to pertinence and ease of use.

conclusionThere was little to choose between FACT-G, EORTC, and the negative IOC scales, any of which may be used to measure QoL. However, the two IOCv2 subscales capture unique aspects of QoL compared to the other measures. The IOCv2 can be used to identify those cancer survivors who would benefit from interventions to improve their QoL and to target specific needs thereby providing more holistic and personalised care beyond cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomAssessmentCancerQuality of lifeSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID33783624
PMCPMC8410707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.