ABSTRACT
Contact dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition that can cause significant impairment in patients' overall quality of life (QoL). This impact is separate and potentially more clinically relevant than one's disease "severity" in contact dermatitis and should be consistently addressed by dermatologists. Despite this, QoL tools specific to contact dermatitis are lacking, and there is little consistency in the literature regarding the tool used to evaluate clinical response to therapies. Measurements currently available to evaluate disease-related QoL in contact dermatitis fit into 1 of the following 3 general types: generic health-related QoL measures, dermatology-related QoL measures, or specific dermatologic disease-related QoL measures. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of existing QoL tools used in contact dermatitis including: Short Form Survey 36, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Skindex-29, Skindex-16, Dermatology-Specific Quality of Life, and Fragrance Quality of Life Index.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/psychology , Dermatitis, Irritant/psychology , Quality of Life/psychology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/physiopathology , Dermatitis, Contact/physiopathology , Dermatitis, Contact/psychology , Dermatitis, Irritant/physiopathology , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Severity of Illness Index , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to quantify the impact (utility) of common complications of early cervical cancer treatment on quality of life (QOL). Utilities assigned by survivors were compared to those assigned by providers. METHODS: 30 survivors of early cervical cancer identified from our Tumor Registry and 10 gynecologic oncology providers were interviewed. Participants evaluated complications (health states) using the standard gamble (SG) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Each participant was randomly assigned to rate 5 of 13 health states. Mixed-effects linear models were used to generate confidence intervals for utility means, and evaluate the effect of group (survivors versus providers). Higher utilities indicate the health state is closer to perfect health. RESULTS: Survivors and providers mean ages were similar (44 and 40). Mean time from diagnosis was 6.7 years. 28 of 30 survivors had no evidence of disease. 56% of survivors had complications. Using SG, providers consistently assigned utilities 7% higher than survivors (p=0.035) for all health states except "ileostomy", which survivors rated higher than providers. Survivors assigned the lowest utility to small bowel obstruction (SBO) (fixable without an ostomy) and ureteral obstruction (UO). Survivors rated SBO 16% and UO 21% lower than providers. Personal history of complications or higher stage did not have a consistent effect on QOL adjustments. DISCUSSION: Providers assign higher utilities than survivors to health states. Providers and survivors diverge on which complications impact QOL the most. Data on patient preferences should be considered when weighing treatment options with similar survival but different associated complications.
