Search

Background: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients often suffer from distress attributed to their cancer diagnosis which may disturb their sleep. However, there is lack of research about poor sleep quality among newly diagnosed HNC patients. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the prevalence and the associated factors of poor sleep quality among HNC patients before starting treatment.Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the baseline data from NET-QUBIC study, an ongoing multi-center cohort of HNC patients in the Netherlands. Poor sleep quality was defined as a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) total score of > 5. Risk factors examined were sociodemographic factors (age, sex, education level, living situation), clinical characteristics (HNC subsite, tumor stage, comorbidity, performance status), lifestyle factors, coping styles, and HNC symptoms.Results: Among 560 HNC patients, 246 (44%) had poor sleep quality before start of treatment. Several factors were found to be significantly associated with poor sleep: younger age (odds ratio [OR] for each additional year 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.00), being female (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7-4.1), higher passive coping style (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.28), more oral pain (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.19), and less sexual interest and enjoyment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20).Conclusion: Poor sleep quality is highly prevalent among HNC patients before start of treatment. Early evaluation and tailored intervention to improve sleep quality are necessary to prepare these patients for HNC treatment and its consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The EORTC QLQ-CR29 is a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer patients in research and clinical practice. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether the initial positive results regarding the measurement properties of the QLQ-CR29 are confirmed in subsequent studies.Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies investigating the measurement properties of the QLQ-CR29 published up to January 2019. For the 11 included studies, data were extracted, methodological quality was assessed, results were synthesized, and evidence was graded according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology on the measurement properties: structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, construct validity (hypothesis testing, including known-group comparison, convergent and divergent validity), cross-cultural validity, and responsiveness.Results: Internal consistency was rated as "sufficient," with low evidence. Reliability was rated as "insufficient," with moderate evidence. Construct validity (hypothesis testing; known-group comparison, convergent and divergent validity) was rated as "inconsistent," with moderate evidence. Structural validity, measurement error, and responsiveness were rated as "indeterminate" and could therefore not be graded.Conclusion: This review indicates that current evidence supporting the measurement properties of the QLQ-CR29 is limited. Additionally, better quality research is needed, taking into account the COSMIN methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Body image is acknowledged as an important aspect of health-related quality of life in cancer patients. The Body Image Scale (BIS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate body image in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to systematically review measurement properties of the BIS among cancer patients.Methods: A search in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that investigated measurement properties of the BIS (Prospero ID 42017057237). Study quality was assessed (excellent, good, fair, poor), and data were extracted and analyzed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology on structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness. Evidence was categorized into sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate.Results: Nine studies were included. Evidence was sufficient for structural validity (one factor solution), internal consistency (α = 0.86-0.96), and reliability (r > 0.70); indeterminate for measurement error (information on minimal important change lacked) and responsiveness (increasing body image disturbance in only one study); and inconsistent for hypothesis testing (conflicting results). Quality of the evidence was moderate to low. No studies reported on cross-cultural validity.Conclusion: The BIS is a PROM with good structural validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, but good quality studies on the other measurement properties are needed to optimize evidence. It is recommended to include a wider variety of cancer diagnoses and treatment modalities in these future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]