Open Access

Health-related quality of life assessment in Indonesian childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia

  • Mei N Sitaresmi1Email author,
  • Saskia Mostert2,
  • Chad M Gundy3,
  • Sutaryo4 and
  • Anjo JP Veerman2
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes20086:96

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-96

Received: 10 August 2008

Accepted: 09 November 2008

Published: 09 November 2008

Abstract

Background

Most studies on Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in children with cancer were conducted in developed countries. The aims of this study were to assess the HRQOL in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients in Indonesia and to assess the influence of demographic and medical characteristics on HRQOL.

Methods

After cultural linguistic validation, a cross-sectional study of HRQOL was conducted with childhood ALL patients and their guardians in various phases of treatment using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL™) 4.0 Generic Core Scale and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL™) 3.0 Cancer Module.

Results

Ninety-eight guardians and 55 patients participated. The internal consistency of both scales ranged from 0.57 to 0.92. HRQOL of Indonesian patients was comparable with those in developed countries. There were moderate to good correlations between self-reports and proxy-reports, however guardians tended to report worse HRQOL than patients. Children of the 2–5 year-group significantly had more problems in procedural anxiety, treatment anxiety and communication subscales than in older groups (p < 0.05). In the non-intensive phase HRQOL was significantly better than in the intensive phase, both in patient self-reports and proxy-reports.

Conclusion

Younger children had more problems in procedural anxiety, treatment anxiety and communication subscales. Therefore, special care during intervention procedures is needed to promote their normal development. Psychosocial support should be provided to children and their parents to facilitate their coping with disease and its treatment.

Background

The survival rate of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), the most common malignancy in children, has improved in recent years to a 5-year survival rate of about 80% [1, 2], although it is often less than 35% in developing countries [36]. As the treatment for childhood ALL can be aggressive and associated with acute and long-term morbidity due to side effects, it is important to not only look at the survival but to analyze the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as well [2]. Implementing HRQOL measurements in pediatric healthcare settings can improve communication between patients and health care providers (HCP), increase patient/parent satisfaction with HCP, identify hidden morbidities, and assist in clinical decision-making [7, 8].

HRQOL is defined as a multidimensional construct composed of the patients' perceptions of the impact of disease and treatment on his or her functioning in a variety of aspects of life, including physical, psychological and social health domains [8, 9]. Pediatric patient self-reports are considered to be the standard for measuring HRQOL, however proxy reports may be the only available source of data when children are too young, too cognitively impaired or too sick to complete a HRQOL instrument [10, 11]. A generic HRQOL measurement instrument can be used in a healthy population and enables standardized comparisons between healthy children and children with chronic health problems. However it cannot be used to measure specific disease symptoms and treatment side effects. A disease-specific instrument is unable to provide comparisons with healthy children, but it is more sensitive to measure clinical symptoms of diseases. Using both a generic and specific diseases instrument is recommended to achieve a more comprehensive evaluation of the patients' HRQOL [8]. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) 4.0 Generic Core Scales [12], and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL) 3.0 Cancer Module [13] are considered to be very promising HRQOL instruments for children and adolescents, integrating generic core scales and disease-specific modules into one measurement system. It is designed for pediatric patients between the ages of 2 and 18 years, and available in a patient self-report version designed for children/adolescents and a proxy-report version for guardians [1417].

Some studies found that there was correlation between gender and socioeconomic status (SES) and health status influence HRQOL [14, 17]. Many studies assessed HRQOL in childhood ALL patients in developed countries, but few have been conducted in developing countries, where supportive care for ALL patients is limited [1821]. The aims of this study were to assess the HRQOL in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients in Indonesia and to assess the influence of demographic and medical characteristics on HRQOL.

Methods

Setting

Indonesia is a multi-island state, and has a population of approximately 220 million of whom 37% are children under 15 years. A childhood leukemia incidence of 2.5 to 4.0 new cases per 100 000 children leads to an estimated 2000 to 3200 new childhood ALL cases each year [22]. Our study was conducted at the pediatric department of Dr. Sardjito Hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Dr. Sardjito Hospital is a teaching hospital of the medical faculty of the Gadjah Mada University, and a tertiary-care referral hospital of the Yogyakarta and Central Java Provinces. Annually aproximately 30–40 children are diagnosed with ALL. The pediatric department consists of a clinic (VIP, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class) and a policlinic (VIP and general).

Study design

After cultural linguistic validation, a cross-sectional study was conducted with childhood ALL patients and their guardians in various phases of treatment using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL™) 4.0 Generic Core Scale and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL™) 3.0 Cancer Module. The cultural linguistic validation process consists of 3 steps: forward translation, backward translation, and patient testing. In the first step, the instruments were translated from English version to Bahasa Indonesia version, and it was done independently by two local professional translators, native Indonesia speakers, and bilingual in English language. The second step, the Bahasa Indonesia version was translated back to English version and it was done independently by two local professional translators, native English speakers, and bilingual in Bahasa Indonesia language. In this step a comparison between the backward version with the original version was assessed in order to detect any misunderstandings, mistranslations or inaccuracies in the intermediary forward version of the questionnaire. Finally, the translated questionnaire was tested in 5 cancer families, both in children and their guardians, to determine whether the translation (instructions, items and response choices) is acceptable, whether it is understood in the way it is supposed to be, and whether the language used is simple and appropriate. All PedsQL™ translations were conducted in close ongoing collaboration with Mapi Research Institute in Lyon, France and with Dr. James W. Varni.

Participants were childhood ALL patients who were hospitalized or visited the policlinic at Dr Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, from October 2006 until January 2008. Eligible patients were children of 2–16 years at time of diagnosis. Patients with severe conditions who were not able to answer the questionnaire were excluded. During this period 2 ALL dexametasone-based protocols were used: Wijaya Kusuma ALL protocol and Indonesia ALL protocol. According to both protocols there are 2 risk groups: standard risk (SR) and high risk (HR). Both protocols consist of an induction, consolidation, re-induction (only for HR) and maintenance phase. We classified the phase as either intensive (induction, consolidation, re-induction) or non-intensive (maintenance). Interviews of eligible patients and their guardians, who were interviewed separately, were performed individually by a trained psychologist. It took 10–20 minutes for guardians and 20–45 minutes for patients to complete the questionnaire. Demographic data regarding information about age, relationship of respondent to child, number of children in the family, parental educational status, and socio-economic status were collected from guardians. Parental educational status was categorized into low educational status (no education, elementary school, junior high school) and high educational status (senior high school, academy, university). We classified SES as either poor or prosperous. This classification was based on 2 determinants: monthly income level of parents and assigned hospital class during the diagnostic process. Both determinants are obtained routinely during admission to the clinic and recorded in the medical records. The threshold per month income for poor versus prosperous families was set at 1.000.000 Indonesian Rupiah (about 100 US dollar). Patients attending VIP or first class wards and VIP policlinic were classified as prosperous. In case there is discordance between family income and hospitalization class or data of family income is not available, we used hospitalization class as SES determinant. Medical data regarding diagnosis and treatment status were obtained from the patients' MR. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committees of Faculty medicine, Gadjah Mada University. Informed consents were also obtained from the guardians.

Instruments and measurements

The PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scale (Generic Scale) is a multidimensional instrument developed by Varni et al [12]. It consists of 23 items categorized into 4 subscales: physical functioning (8 items), emotional functioning (5 items), social functioning (5 items) and school functioning (5 items). For interpretation, three scores can be obtained: physical health (score of the physical functioning subscale); psychosocial health (combined scores of the emotional functioning, social functioning and school functioning subscales), and total score (combined score of physical health and psychosocial health).

The PedsQL™ 3.0 Cancer Module (Cancer Module) is a multidimensional instrument developed by Varni et al. to assess the impact of disease and treatment on the HRQOL of pediatric cancer patients [13]. It consists of 27 items distributed to 8 subscales: pain and hurt (2 items), nausea (5 items), procedural anxiety (3 items), treatment anxiety (3 items), worry (3 items), cognitive problems (5 items), perceived physical appearance (3 items) and communication (3 items). Both instruments were available for children aged: 5–7, 8–12 and 13–18 years old; as well as for the guardians of children aged: 2–4, 5–7, 8–12 and 13–18 years old.

The scale has five Likert response options: never, almost never, sometimes, often and almost always. To simplify the interpretation, all Likert scales were converted to 0–100. The higher scores indicate a higher HRQOL. For the versions adapted to children between the ages of 5 and 7 years, there are only three response options: never, sometimes and almost always (corresponding to 100, 50, 0). For this age, a Face Scale was used, comprising of 3 pictures of facial expressions varying from a smiling face to a very sad face to indicate no problem/difficulty/pain to a lot of problems/difficulty/pain.

Statistical analysis

The internal consistency of the Generic Scales and the Cancer Scale were measured by Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient. Values ≥ 0.70 were considered acceptable for comparisons between groups [23]. The correlation between the self-reports and the proxy-reports was assessed by interclass correlation coefficient. A comparison score between different demographic characteristics: age, gender, parental education status, SES, position of the child in the family, and medical groups of treatment (risk stratification, phase of treatment) were measured using Independent-Sample T test. All analyses were performed with two-sided tests and a value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. The SPSS for Windows (version 12) programs were used for the data analysis.

Results

Demographic and medical characteristics

During October 2006 – January 2008, 110 ALL patients were hospitalized or visited the pediatric department of Dr. Sardjito Hospital. Ninety-eight patients were recruited according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no significant differences between the studied group and those who did not participate with regard to demographic characteristics. All guardians completed the proxy-reports questionnaire. Fifty-five patients participated in patient self-report, 3 (10%) patients of 5–7 year-old age group did not wish to answer the questionnaire. There was no significant difference between proxy-reports and self-reports with regard to age, gender, parental educational status, SES, ALL risk stratification, and phase of treatment. The average age of all patients was 6.6 years (SD = 3.7), median 6 years, range 2–16 years. Most respondents of proxy reports were mothers (n = 74, 76%), and most families (n = 76, 78%) belonged to low SES (Table 1).
Table 1

Demographic and medical characteristics

Variable

Self-reports (n = 55)

n (%)

Proxy-reports (n = 98)

n (%)

Demographic characteristic

  

Child age in year, mean + SD (range)

8.8+3.1(5–16)

6.6 +3.7 (2–16)

   2–4 year-group

 

40 (41)

   5–7 year-group

24 (44)

25 (26)

   8–12 year-group

24 (44)

25 (26)

   13–18 year-group

7 (12)

7 (7)

Child gender, male n (%)

27 (49)

54 (55)

Number of child in family

  

   single child n (%)

16 (29)

34 (35)

Respondent, n (%)

  

   mothers

 

75

   father

 

20

   others

 

4

Socio-economic status

  

Class of hospitalization: 2nd and 3rd class

42 (76)

76 (78)

Parents' income: <100 US dollar

37 (67)

70 (71)

Parents' employment: non employed

29 (53)

54 (55)

Parents' educational level

  

   mother: low educational level

27 (49)

74 (76)

   father: low educational level

24 (43)

40 (41)

Medical characteristics

  

Phase of treatment: intensive phase

27 (49)

56 (57)

Risk stratification: SR

24 (44)

49 (50)

Psychometrics of the questionnaire

Cronbach's alpha for total scale of the Generic Scales and the Cancer Scale were all above 0.7 in both self-reports and proxy-reports. A positive correlation between self-reports and proxy-reports was found on all subscales and total scale of both the Generic Scales and the Cancer Scale, except the perceived physical appearance. Physical functioning, procedural anxiety and communication subscales showed a good correlation between self-reports and proxy-reports (ICC> 0.61), but other subscales only showed a weak-moderate correlation (ICC 0.31–0.60). Guardians tended to report lower HRQOL than did patients in Cancer Scale. In both self report and proxy report, psychosocial health subscale was better than physical health subscale (table 2).
Table 2

Scale description and internal consistency reliability for PedsQL generic core scale and cancer module

Scale descriptive

Child self reports

(n = 55)

Proxy reports

(n = 98)

Patients-proxy scale

 

Mean

SD*

α **

Mean

SD*

α **

ICC***

Generic Scale

       

Total score

71.8

17.8

0.86

71.3

17.2

0.92

0.62

Physical health

68.1

26.4

0.83

64.3

26.6

0.87

0.61

Psychosocial health

73.4

17.3

0.81

73.2

16.0

0.88

0.56

Emotional functioning

71.2

22.1

0.69

69.1

21.8

0.78

0.46

Social functioning

83.4

16.6

0.57

85.0

16.0

0.67

0.36

School Functioning****

63.5

24.6

0.66

61.6

26.0

0.79

0.44

Cancer Scale

       

Total score

77.1

16.8

0.82

72.2

18.3

0.89

0.62

Pain and hurt

80.1

27.4

0.70

71.0

29.8

0.84

0.31

Nausea

82.6

21.4

0.87

78.8

19.5

0.74

0.54

Procedural anxiety

69.9

32.3

0.85

60.1

36.9

0.89

0.61

Treatment anxiety

88.2

22.5

0.78

74.4

33.2

0.90

0.33

Worry

75.5

27.7

0.73

74.6

25.8

0.80

0.33

Cognitive problem

76.9

23,2

0.88

77.6

23.9

0.91

0.60

Perceived physical appear

76.4

27.2

0.64

82.5

22.6

0.69

0.16 NS

communication

68.3

37.0

0.83

60.2

36.9

0.84

0.70

Higher score indicate higher quality of life or fewer problems.

*SD = standard deviation; **α = internal consistency; ***ICC = Interclass correlation coefficient between proxy-reports and child-reports; ****n = 46 in child reports and n = 64 in proxy report.

NS = no significant

Influence of demographic and medical characteristics on HRQOL

Gender, position of the child in the family, SES, parental educational status, and risk stratification did not correlate to any scales of HRQOL (table 3 and additional file 1). However, HRQOL of 2–5 year-group was significantly lower than HRQOL in the older group regarding procedural anxiety, treatment anxiety and communication subscales (p < 0.05) (table 4). The total score of the Generic Scales and the Cancer Scale in the non-intensive phase were significantly better than in the intensive-phase, in both patient self-reports as well as proxy-reports. Procedural anxiety subscale showed the greatest significant difference between the different phases. In the intensive phase, both children and guardians reported lower scores in procedural anxiety and communication. In the non-intensive phase, both children and guardians reported the lowest score in the worry subscale (table 5).
Table 3

Comparison means score of HRQOL (generic scale) between different demographic and medical characteristics: proxy report

 

Total Score

Mean (SD)

Physical F

Mean (SD)

Emotional F

Mean (SD)

Social F

Mean (SD)

School

Mean (SD)

 

P

p

p

p

p

Gender

     

Male (n = 54)

72 (16)

66 (27)

70 (21)

87 (14)

63 (23)

Female (n = 44)

69 (19)

62 (26)

67 (22)

83 (18)

60 (29)

P

0.41

0.45

0.61

0.21

0.64

Risk stratification

     

SR (n = 49)

72 (17)

66 (26)

69 (28)

84 (17)

66 (24)

HR (n = 49)

69 (17)

62 (26)

68 (22)

86 (15)

57 (27)

P

0.45

0.42

0.79

0.42

0.21

SES

     

Low (n = 76)

71 (9)

65 (14)

69 (22)

85 (17)

63 (27)

High (n = 22)

69 (11)

64 (18)

70 (20)

85 (16)

56 (22)

p

0.78

0.88

0.88

0.90

0.34

Father's occupation

     

Unemployed (n = 54)

70 (19)

64 (29)

69 (22)

84 (17)

60 (30)

Employed (n = 44)

71 (15)

62 (26)

68 (21)

86 (15)

63 (21)

p

0.84

0.94

0.91

0.42

0.61

Mother's occupation

     

Unemployed (n = 74)

71 (18)

66 (28)

68 (21)

85 (17)

62 (23)

Employed (n = 24)

69 (15)

60 (22)

70 (22)

85 (15)

60 (22)

p

0.65

0.34

0.69

0.98

0.82

Father's Education

     

Low (n = 40)

73 (19)

62 (25)

74 (21)

87 (17)

63 (26)

High (n = 58)

68 (16)

62 (25)

66 (21)

84 (16)

60 (26)

p

0.17

0.29

0.09

0.34

0.68

Mother's education

     

Low (n = 42)

70 (18)

62 (28)

68 (22)

86 (16)

65 (24)

High (n = 56)

71 (17)

66 (25)

69 (21)

84 (17)

58 (27)

p

0.96

0.88

0.74

0.48

0.34

Table 4

Comparison means score of HRQOL between difference ages, proxy reports

Descriptive scale

2–4 year

n = 40

Mean(SD)

5–16 year

n = 58

Mean(SD)

Mean Difference (95% CI)

p

Generic Scale

    

Total score

70 (18)

71 (17)

1(-6–8)

0.77

Physical functioning

64 (28)

65 (25)

1(-9–12)

0.83

Psychosocial F

73 (16)

73 (16)

0 (-6–7)

0.98

Emotional F

66 (20)

71 (22)

5(-3–14)

0.23

Social F

85 (16)

85 (17)

0 (-6–7)

0.88

School F*

52 (19)

63 (25)

1(-6–29)

0.19

Cancer Scale

    

Total score

67 (19)

76 (16)

10 (9–17)

0.01

Pain and hurt

70 (32)

72 (27)

2(-9–15)

0.64

Nausea

78 (17)

79 (20)

1 (-6–9)

0.75

Procedural anxiety

44 (36)

71 (33)

27 (12–40)

0.001

Treatment anxiety

57 (39)

86 (21)

29 (16–41)

0.001

Worry

74 (28)

75 (24)

1 (-11-11)

0.88

Cognitive problem

77 (26)

78 (23)

1 (-9–10)

0.72

Perceived physical app.

84 (21)

82 (23)

6 (-10-7)

0.58

communication

49 (28)

68 (34)

19 (5–34)

0.01

Higher score indicate higher quality of life or fewer problems.

*n = 10 in 2–4 year-group and n = 53 in 5–16 year-group

Table 5

Comparison means score of HRQOL (generic scale and cancer scale) between intensive and non intensive treatment: self-reports and proxy report (bold)

Descriptive scale

Intensive* Mean(SD)

Non intensive* Mean(SD)

Mean Difference (95% CI)

p

Generic Scale

    

Total score

63(17)

79(14)

16 (7–25)

0.01

 

61 (14)

83 (17)

22 (16–28)

0.001

Physical Health

57(26)

77(22)

20 (–-34)

0.001

 

50 (23)

83 (17)

33 (24–41)

0.001

Psychosocial Health

65 (17)

80 (13)

15 (6–23)

0.01

 

66 (14)

83 (12)

17 (12–23)

0.01

Emotional Functioning

64 (25)

76 (18)

12 (-1–23)

0.06

 

61 (21)

80 (16)

21 (12–28)

0.001

Social Functioning

78 (18)

88 (13)

10 (2–19)

0.01

 

79 (17)

92 (13)

13 (7–39)

0.01

School Functioning**

50 (25)

75(17)

25 (13–19)

0.001

 

47 (26)

75 (16)

28 (17–39)

0.001

Cancer Scale

    

Total score

69 (13)

84 (16)

15 (7–24)

0.01

 

63 (15)

85 (12)

22 (17–28)

0.001

Pain and hurt

72 (26)

88 (26)

16 (2–31)

0.01

 

59 (31)

87 (17)

38 (18–39)

0.001

Nausea

81 (20)

84 (22)

3 (-8–14)

0.63

 

76 (20)

83 (17)

7 (-1–14)

0.07

Procedural anxiety

54 (29)

85 (27)

31 (12–47)

0.001

 

43 (34)

82 (27)

39 (26–53)

0.001

Treatment anxiety

84 (23)

92 (21)

8 (-4–20)

0.19

 

64 (36)

89 (16)

25 (13–38)

0.001

Worry

74 (26)

76 (29)

2 (-13–18)

0.75

 

68 (23)

81 (23)

13 (2–23)

0.01

Cognitive problem

71 (23)

82 (21)

11 (-1–23)

0.07

 

73 (24)

82 (22)

9 (1–20)

0.04

Perceived physical app.

71 (28)

81 (25)

9 (-5–24)

0.21

 

75 (23)

93 (16)

18 (9–26)

0.001

Communication

48 (26)

87 (26)

39 (22–57)

0.001

 

43 (34)

82 (21)

39 (26–52)

0.001

Higher score indicate higher quality of life or fewer problems; *self-reports (n = 27 in the intensive phase and n = 28 in the non-intensive phase); proxy-reports (n = 56 in the intensive phase and n = 42 in the non-intensive phase), ** self-reports (n = 22 in intensive treatment and n = 24 in non intensive treatment); proxy-reports (n = 31 in intensive treatment and n = 33 in non intensive treatment)

Discussion

Although recent survival rates of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in developed countries are about 80%, the survival rates in developing countries are often less than 35%. In our previous study the overall even-free survival rate was only 20% [24]. One might assume that the low survival in developing countries may result in lower HRQOL due to increased morbidity and poor socio-economic circumstances. It is surprising therefore, that the scores of the Generic Scale in our study were in fact similar than reported in studies conducted in developed countries using the same instrument [19, 25, 26]. A reason for this might be that our children and their guardians expect a lower HRQOL as a normal consequence of having a severe disease.

There was no significant difference on HRQOL between different SES and parent educational status. Other study found the similar results [19]. However, we did not find any difference on HRQOL between boys and girls while other studies found that girls had more problems in the emotional domain [19, 20]. Our study showed that younger children had lower HRQOL in procedural anxiety, treatment anxiety and communication subscales. Therefore, these younger children need special care, especially in the area of interventions: vena-punctures, bone marrow puncture and lumbar puncture. Dynamic psychological and social development of 2–5 year-old children can be interrupted by serious life-threatening illness, regular invasive examination and hospital visits, interruption of school attendance and social activities, as well as family crisis. All these factors can influence and interrupt normal psychological, social development and further academic achievement [16].

In both self-reports and proxy-reports, the psychosocial health subscale was better than the physical health subscale. This result was similar to other studies assessing HRQOL in ALL patients on treatment [19, 25]. In contrast, studies on survivors of ALL found that psychosocial health was lower than physical health [27, 28]. Although survivors of ALL were generally well, they experienced considerable impact on psychosocial health. Survivors may be worried about possible late-effects and recurrence of cancer. This finding implies that psychosocial support remains important long after treatment has completed, and even when the physical health appears well.

As can be expected, HRQOL scores in the non-intensive phase were generally significantly better than in the intensive-phase, in both self-reports and proxy-reports. Significant differences were found in the physical health, pain, procedural anxiety and communication subscales. These results are similar to earlier studies [10, 20, 25]. In the intensive phase, children had more problems on physical functioning and pain subscales than in the non-intensive phase. It may be due to the treatment, where more aggressive chemotherapy was given in the intensive phase or due to the disease itself. Most of our patients come to the hospital in an advanced stage of the disease after having been hospitalized and treated by previous hospitals. Better scores, less problems, in the non-intensive phase on procedural anxiety and communication may be due to the fact that the patients had already adapted with procedures and HCP.

In the non-intensive phase, both patients and their guardians perceived that children had lower scores, more problems, in worry and emotional subscale. It is not surprising that patients still worry about side-effects of the chemotherapy and curability of ALL since many patients in our hospital suffer from severe side-effects or die during the course of treatment. This concern about side-effects and curability may be a reason for non-compliance. Therefore it is important that health care providers improve their quality of care to reduce side-effects and improve survival rate.

We, like others [10, 17, 27]. found that there were moderate to good correlations between self-reports and proxy reports. Parents tended to perceive their child's HRQOL worse than children themselves. This may reflect parents-distress regarding the condition of their children. More emphasis on psychological support for both patients and parents is needed.

In summary, younger children had more problems in procedural anxiety, treatment anxiety and communication subscales. Therefore, special care during intervention procedures is needed to promote their normal development. Psychosocial support should be provided for both children and their guardians to facilitate their coping with the disease and its treatment.

Abbreviations

ALL: 

acute lymphoblastic leukemia

HRQOL: 

health-related quality of life

PedsQL™: 

the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor James Varni for the permission to use the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scale and PedsQL™ 3.0 Cancer Module Scale. We also would like to thank Ignatius Purwanto for his excellent data management and number of people for their efforts at interviewing respondents. Our project is supported by grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds) and Estella Foundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Gadjah Mada University
(2)
Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, VU Medical Center, VU
(3)
Department of Psycho-Social Research and Epidemiology, Dutch Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
(4)
Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gadjah Mada University

References

  1. Pui CH, Campana D, Evans WE: Childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia – current status and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 2001, 2: 597–607. 10.1016/S1470-2045(01)00516-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pui CH, Jeha S: New therapeutic strategies for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007, 6: 149–65. 10.1038/nrd2240View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ribeiro RC, Pui CH: Saving the children – improving childhood cancer treatment in developing countries. N Engl J Med 2005, 352: 2158–60. 10.1056/NEJMp048313View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rajajee S, Desikulu MV, Pushpa V: Survival of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: experience in Chennai. J Trop Pediatr 1999, 45: 367–70. 10.1093/tropej/45.6.367View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Metzger ML, Howard SC, Fu LC, Pena A, Stefan R, Hancock ML, et al.: Outcome of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in resource-poor countries. Lancet 2003, 362: 706–8. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14228-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Magrath I: Pediatric Oncology in Countries with Limited Resources. In Principles and practice of pediatric oncology. Edited by: Pizzo PA, Poplack DG. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1997:1395–419.Google Scholar
  7. Eiser C: Beyond survival: quality of life and follow-up after childhood cancer. J Pediatr Psychol 2007, 32: 1140–50. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsm052View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Lane MM: Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric clinical practice: an appraisal and precept for future research and application. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3: 34. 10.1186/1477-7525-3-34PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Langeveld NE, Stam H, Grootenhuis MA, Last BF: Quality of life in young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Support Care Cancer 2002, 10: 579–600. 10.1007/s00520-002-0388-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Yeh CH, Chang CW, Chang PC: Evaluating quality of life in children with cancer using children's self-reports and parent-proxy reports. Nurs Res 2005, 54: 354–62. 10.1097/00006199-200509000-00010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Varni JW, Limbers C, Burwinkle TM: Literature review: health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric oncology: hearing the voices of the children. J Pediatr Psychol 2007, 32: 1151–63. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsm008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS: PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care 2001, 39: 800–12. 10.1097/00005650-200108000-00006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Katz ER, Meeske K, Dickinson P: The PedsQL in pediatric cancer: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales, Multidimensional Fatigue Scale, and Cancer Module. Cancer 2002, 94: 2090–106. 10.1002/cncr.10428View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Upton P, Eiser C, Cheung I, Hutchings HA, Jenney M, Maddocks A, et al.: Measurement properties of the UK-English version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL) generic core scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3: 22. 10.1186/1477-7525-3-22PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Scarpelli AC, Paiva SM, Pordeus IA, Ramos-Jorge ML, Varni JW, Allison PJ: Measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) cancer module scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6: 7. 10.1186/1477-7525-6-7PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Reinfjell T, Lofstad GE, Veenstra M, Vikan A, Diseth TH: Health-related quality of life and intellectual functioning in children in remission from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Acta Paediatr 2007, 96: 1280–5. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00383.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gkoltsiou K, Dimitrakaki C, Tzavara C, Papaevangelou V, Varni JW, Tountas Y: Measuring health-related quality of life in Greek children: psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory(TM) 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Qual Life Res 2008, 17: 299–305. 10.1007/s11136-007-9294-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. van Brussel M, Takken T, Lucia A, van der Net J, Helders PJ: Is physical fitness decreased in survivors of childhood leukemia? A systematic review. Leukemia 2005, 19: 13–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Meeske K, Katz ER, Palmer SN, Burwinkle T, Varni JW: Parent proxy-reported health-related quality of life and fatigue in pediatric patients diagnosed with brain tumors and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 2004, 101: 2116–25. 10.1002/cncr.20609View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Landolt MA, Vollrath M, Niggli FK, Gnehm HE, Sennhauser FH: Health-related quality of life in children with newly diagnosed cancer: a one year follow-up study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4: 63. 10.1186/1477-7525-4-63PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fluchel M, Horsman JR, Furlong W, Castillo L, Alfonz Y, Barr RD: Self and proxy-reported health status and health-related quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer in Uruguay. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008, 50: 838–43. 10.1002/pbc.21299View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sutaryo , Sumadiono , Suhadi , et al.: The Protocol of Wijaya Kusuma acute lymphoblastic leukemia of childhood 2000. In Indonesian Multicentre Study Group, Yogyakarta. Gadjah Mada University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Waters E, Maher E: Assessing quality of life. In Evidence-based pediatric and child health. Edited by: Moyer V, Ellist E. BMJ Publishing group; 2000:99–100.Google Scholar
  24. Mostert S, Sitaresmi MN, Gundy CM, Sutaryo , Veerman AJ: Influence of socioeconomic status on childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment in Indonesia. Pediatrics 2006, 118: e1600-e1606. 10.1542/peds.2005-3015View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Eiser C, Davies H, Jenney M, Stride C, Glaser A: HRQOL implications of treatment with dexamethasone for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006, 46: 35–9. 10.1002/pbc.20432View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Varni JW, Limbers CA, Burwinkle TM: Parent proxy-report of their children's health-related quality of life: an analysis of 13,878 parents' reliability and validity across age subgroups using the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5: 2. 10.1186/1477-7525-5-2PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Felder-Puig R, Frey E, Proksch K, Varni JW, Gadner H, Topf R: Validation of the German version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) in childhood cancer patients off treatment and children with epilepsy. Qual Life Res 2004, 13: 223–34. 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015305.44181.e3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Eiser C, Vance YH, Horne B, Glaser A, Galvin H: The value of the PedsQLTM in assessing quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer. Child Care Health Dev 2003, 29: 95–102. 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00318.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Sitaresmi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement