Assessing Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS)

Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1063, USA.
Quality of Life Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 05/2005; 14(4):1007-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-2147-2
Source: PubMed


This article describes development of a quality of life measure designed to assess issues relevant to long-term cancer survivors. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 58 long-term cancer survivors to identify domains most relevant to long-term survivors (> or = 5 years post-diagnosis). Self-report items were developed from these interviews and administered to a second sample of 242 long-term survivors. Domains and items were selected from the item pool by a combination of factor analysis and criterion-based item selection. Five cancer-specific domains were identified (appearance concerns, financial problems, distress over recurrence, family-related distress, and benefits of cancer) along with seven generic QOL domains (negative feelings, positive feelings, cognitive problems, sexual problems, physical pain, fatigue, and social avoidance). Cronbach's alpha was 0.72 or greater for each domain. Correlations between domain scores and criterion measures were 0.72 or higher in all but one generic domain (social avoidance), but somewhat lower on cancer-specific domains. The new multidimensional measure has good internal consistency and validity and is appropriate for comparisons between cancer and non-cancer populations, as well as long-term follow-up of cancer patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Nancy E Avis,
60 Reads
    • "Many cancer-specific QOL measures have been developed, such as the Functional Adjustment to Cancer Therapy (FACT), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C33), Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC), and Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CaRES/CaRES-SF).[1415] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The objective of this prospective, non-interventional, 4-month observational study was to analyze and compare patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and their physical/psychosocial symptom burden during their respective chemotherapy sessions. Materials and methods: A prospective and descriptive study was carried out jointly by Pharmacology and Oncology Departments of a tertiary care center in Malwa region of Punjab. The data collection was performed by administering validated questionnaire/response after taking informed consent. Results: A total of 131 cancer patients were recruited with the mean age of 49.05 ± 14.35 (SD (standard deviation)) years. As per the QOL scoring of Global Health Status (GHS) and four items of symptom scale, that is, insomnia, pain, appetite loss, and constipation, and financial difficulties attained a significance difference. GHS significantly improved in group three as compared to group one, indicating that the patient's overall health/QOL improved as the chemotherapy session progressed. Conclusion: Although QOL scoring system did not show significant improvement in all areas (except insomnia, pain, appetite loss, constipation, and financial difficulties) with reference to their respective chemotherapy cycles, but a judicious diagnosis with an appropriate treatment including chemotherapy may lessen the negative perception of cancer as a deadly and fatal disease in our rural population.
    Indian Journal of Palliative Care 05/2014; 20(2):116-22. DOI:10.4103/0973-1075.132627
  • Source
    • "The survey queried post-cancer onset physical, emotional, and practical concerns as well as receipt of care for concerns. The concerns cited in the survey were initially included because: 1) they had been used in other surveys (e.g., the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors Scale (QLACS; (Avis et al., 2005); the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (Hesse, Moser, Rutten, & Kreps, 2006)); 2) they were identified by the expert advisors as known late effects; and/or 3) they were addressed by LIVESTRONG educational resources. The survey was repeated in 2010 and collected data from a new sample of respondents. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unlabelled: There is a need to better understand the posttreatment concerns of the nearly 14 million survivors of cancer alive in the United States today and their receipt of care. Using data from 2,910 posttreatment survivors of cancer from the 2006 or 2010 LIVESTRONG Surveys, the authors examined physical, emotional, and practical concerns, receipt of care, and trends in these outcomes at the population level. Results: 89% of respondents reported at least one physical concern (67% received associated posttreatment care), 90% reported at least one emotional concern (47% received care), and 45% reported at least one practical concern (36% received care). Female survivors, younger survivors, those who received more intensive treatment, and survivors without health insurance often reported a higher burden of posttreatment concerns though were less likely to have received posttreatment care. These results reinforce the importance of posttreatment survivorship and underscore the need for continued progress in meeting the needs of this population. Efforts to increase the availability of survivorship care are extremely important to improve the chances of people affected by cancer living as well as possible in the posttreatment period.
    Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 12/2013; 32(2). DOI:10.1080/07347332.2013.874004 · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "• The Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors scale (QLACS) [29] assesses quality of life in five areas suggested by long-term survivors themselves as relevant to their lives (financial problems, benefits of cancer, appearance, distress related to recurrence and distress related to the family), and seven additional areas that are relevant but not limited to cancer (negative feelings; positive feelings; cognitive problems; pain; sexual interest; sexual function; energy/fatigue and social avoidance). QLACS has been validated amongst cancer survivors [29] and has good convergent validity with other QoL measures (e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The number of people surviving colorectal cancer has doubled in recent years. While much of the literature suggests that most people return to near pre-diagnosis status following surgery for colorectal cancer, this literature has largely focused on physical side effects. Longitudinal studies in colorectal cancer have either been small scale or taken a narrow focus on recovery after surgery. There is a need for a comprehensive, long-term study exploring all aspects of health and wellbeing in colorectal cancer patients. The aim of this study is to establish the natural history of health and wellbeing in people who have been treated for colorectal cancer. People have different dispositions, supports and resources, likely resulting in individual differences in restoration of health and wellbeing. The protocol described in this paper is of a study which will identify who is most at risk of problems, assess how quickly people return to a state of subjective health and wellbeing, and will measure factors which influence the course of recovery. This is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study following 1000 people with colorectal cancer over a period of two years, recruiting from 30 NHS cancer treatment centres across the UK. Questionnaires will be administered prior to surgery, and 3, 9, 15 and 24 months after surgery, with the potential to return to this cohort to explore on-going issues related to recovery after cancer. Outcomes will help inform health care providers about what helps or hinders rapid and effective recovery from cancer, and identify areas for intervention development to aid this process. Once established the cohort can be followed up for longer periods and be approached to participate in related projects as appropriate and subject to funding.
    BMC Health Services Research 04/2012; 12(1):90. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-90 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more