Quality of life in migraine patients: a qualitative study.

The impact of migraine on quality of life has been traditionally evaluated by quantitative analysis, but diverse aspects remain insufficiently assessed, so a complementary qualitative approach may have advantages. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of migraine on the quality of life of migraineurs through the perception of patients and their relatives, and healthcare professionals. Qualitative methods were used, including six focus groups and nine personal interviews with 33 migraine patients under physician-directed treatment, five self-medicated patients, five relatives of migraine patients and seven healthcare professionals. Migraine has a negative affect on the quality of life, including physical, emotional and social aspects of daily life such as family, work and social relationships. Family environment and psychological well-being of patients were the aspects most affected according to patients and relatives. Health professionals emphasized work impairment and focused on pharmacological management and on the need for adequate information about migraine for non-medicated patients and patients' relatives. Qualitative methods, such as focus groups and interviews, are a valuable resource for assessing quality of life and well-being of migraine patients. These techniques open up new areas for further research.

[Assessment of quality of life in lung cancer patients]. / Evaluación de la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón.

OBJETIVES: The aim of this study was to describe lung cancer patients' quality of life, measuring physical, psychological and social parameters, and general and specific symptoms of the disease using different questionnaires. METHODS: 103 primary lung cancer patients who were between 20 and 80 years old and recruited during one year were included. All patients fulfilled the generic health related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire SF-36 and the specific EORTC-C30. Also sociodemographic and clinical important data were collected. Differences in aspects of perceived quality of life by diagnostic group and stage were analysed. RESULTS: The results indicate that the patients with a higher disease stage had worse perception of their quality of life in comparison with patients in a lower stage of the disease. Likewise, small cell lung cancer patients, overall, showed a worse perception of their quality of life than non-small cell lung cancer patients. These differences were shown either by generic and the specific questionnaire scores. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in the study show that the SF-36 and EORTC capture the differences in the perceived quality of life in patients by diagnosis and evolution stage of the disease. All quality of life areas were already affected at the moment of the diagnosis of the disease. The scores of both questionnaires are coherent with clinical evaluation, based on the clinical stage, which support the discriminative validity of those instruments.

Evaluación de la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón / Assessment of quality of life in lung cancer patients)

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio ha sido describir la calidad de vida de los pacientes afectados de cáncer de pulmón, midiendo parámetros físicos, psíquicos, sociales, y síntomas generales y específicos de la enfermedad, por medio de cuestionarios, e investigar si existen diferencias en aspectos de la percepción de su calidad de vida según diagnóstico. Métodos: Se incluyeron 103 pacientes con cáncer de pulmón primario con diagnóstico citohistológico de seguridad, con edades comprendidas entre 20 y 80 años, que fueron diagnosticados a lo largo de un año. Todos los pacientes rellenaron el cuestionario de calidad de vida genérico SF-36 y el cuestionario específico EORTC-C30, y se recogió información sobrevariables sociodemográficas y clínicas relevantes. Se analizan los resultados según grupo diagnóstico y estadificación. Resultados: Los resultados obtenidos indican que los pacientes con un estadio de la enfermedad más elevado muestran una peor calidad de vida en comparación con los pacientes que se encuentran en estadios más bajos de la enfermedad. Así mismo, los pacientes con células pequeñas en su conjunto muestran peor calidad de vida que los pacientes con diagnóstico de células no pequeñas. Estas diferencias pueden observarse tanto en las puntuaciones del cuestionario genérico como en las del cuestionario específico. Conclusiones: En conclusión, los resultados obtenidos en el estudio muestran que el SF-36 y el EORTC captan las diferencias existentes en la percepción de la calidad de vida de los pacientes según el diagnóstico y el estadio de evolución de la enfermedad. Todas las áreas de la calidad de vida están afectadas ya en el momento del diagnóstico. Las puntuaciones resultantes de estos 2 cuestionarios son coherentes con la valoración clínica según la estadificación, lo que apoya su validez discriminativa (AU)

Objetives: The aim of this study was to describe lung cancer patients’ quality of life, measuring physical, psychological and social parameters, and general and specific symptoms of the disease using different questionnaires.Methods: 103 primary lung cancer patients who were between 20 and 80 years old and recruited during one year were included. All patients fulfilled the generic health related qualityof life (HRQoL) questionnaire SF-36 and the specificEORTC-C30. Also sociodemographic and clinical important data were collected. Differences in aspects of perceived quality of life by diagnostic group and stage were analysed. Results: The results indicate that the patients with a higher disease stage had worse perception of their quality of life incomparison with patients in a lower stage of the disease. Likewise, small cell lung cancer patients, overall, showed a worse perception of their quality of life than non-small cell lung cancer patients. These differences were shown either by generic and the specific questionnaire scores. Conclusions: The results obtained in the study show that theSF-36 and EORTC capture the differences in the perceived quality of life in patients by diagnosis and evolution stage of the disease. All quality of life areas were already affected at the moment of the diagnosis of the disease. The scores of both questionnaires are coherent with clinical evaluation, based on the clinical stage, which support the discriminative validity of those instruments (AU)