Development of a Health-Related Quality of Life Tool for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: A diagnosis of cancer during adolescence and young adulthood disrupts key developmental stages, affecting multiple domains of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). To provide a comprehensive assessment of the HRQOL issues of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, a questionnaire dedicated to this age group is needed. Objective: To develop an HRQOL questionnaire, as a supplement to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, that measures issues of relevance and importance to AYAs with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was informed by a systematic review of AYA oncology literature published through December 31, 2015, and interviews with AYAs with cancer and health care professionals (HCPs) between February 2015 and February 2024. Participants were recruited from 19 cancer treatment centers in Europe, Asia, and various countries. Participants included HCPs providing care to AYAs with cancer and AYAs aged 14 to 39 years who were receiving treatment for cancer, had completed treatment within the past 12 months, or were receiving palliative care. Data analysis for the survey responses was performed from May to November 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the development of an HRQOL questionnaire that assesses issues of importance and relevance to AYAs with cancer. A draft questionnaire was created and tested for relevance and importance. Exploratory factor analysis identified questionnaire subscales. Internal consistency of items within HRQOL domains was checked using Cronbach α. Results: A total of 253 AYAs (mean [SD] age, 25.5 [7.5] years; 129 males [51%]) completed the draft questionnaire, and 28 HCPs from 20 countries were also involved in this survey study. Pilot testing of the draft questionnaire resulted in a 30-item questionnaire covering 5 subscales (activity limitations and life disruptions, worry about cancer and the future, self-esteem, relationships, and positive changes) and 9 single questions. Reliability testing indicated good internal consistency, with Cronbach α ranging from 0.659 (relationships subscale) to 0.770 (positive changes subscale). Questions about distinguishing between important and nonimportant things and motivation to live life to the full were the most relevant to 89% (211 of 252) and 84% (224 of 252) of AYAs, respectively. Concerns about appearance changes and fertility were identified as priority questions by 24% (21 of 86) of AYAs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, a measurement tool was developed and tested that captures HRQOL issues of importance and relevance to AYAs from diverse cultures and with different cancer and treatment types. This HRQOL questionnaire could be a reliable and valid tool for both clinical trials and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".