A 'short walk' is longer before radiotherapy than afterwards: a qualitative study questioning the baseline and follow-up design

Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHealth and quality of life outcomes Vol. 8; no. 1; p. 69
Main Authors Taminiau-Bloem, Elsbeth F, van Zuuren, Florence J, Koeneman, Margot A, Rapkin, Bruce D, Visser, Mechteld R M, Koning, Caro C E, Sprangers, Mirjam A G
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 16.07.2010
BioMed Central
BMC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin & Schwartz. The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
AbstractList BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. METHODS: We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin & Schwartz. RESULTS: The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. CONCLUSIONS: The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
BACKGROUNDNumerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. METHODSWe conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin & Schwartz. RESULTSThe interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. CONCLUSIONSThe assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
Background Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. Methods We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin and Schwartz. Results The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. Conclusions The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin and Schwartz. The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
Abstract Background Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. Methods We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin & Schwartz. Results The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. Conclusions The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin & Schwartz. The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.
Audience Academic
Author Koning, Caro C E
Rapkin, Bruce D
Koeneman, Margot A
Visser, Mechteld R M
van Zuuren, Florence J
Sprangers, Mirjam A G
Taminiau-Bloem, Elsbeth F
AuthorAffiliation 5 Department of Radiotherapy, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1 Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4 Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: 5 Department of Radiotherapy, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
– name: 2 Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
– name: 4 Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
– name: 3 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA
– name: 1 Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Elsbeth F
  surname: Taminiau-Bloem
  fullname: Taminiau-Bloem, Elsbeth F
  email: e.f.bloem@amc.uva.nl
  organization: Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.f.bloem@amc.uva.nl
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Florence J
  surname: van Zuuren
  fullname: van Zuuren, Florence J
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Margot A
  surname: Koeneman
  fullname: Koeneman, Margot A
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Bruce D
  surname: Rapkin
  fullname: Rapkin, Bruce D
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Mechteld R M
  surname: Visser
  fullname: Visser, Mechteld R M
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Caro C E
  surname: Koning
  fullname: Koning, Caro C E
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Mirjam A G
  surname: Sprangers
  fullname: Sprangers, Mirjam A G
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20637086$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp1kstrGzEQxpeS0jzaa49F0IPpYVPtah_aHgIm9GEIFPo4i5E0u1a6llxJm9Sn_uuV49TENEUHiW---aF5nGZH1lnMspcFPS8K3rwtqrbN27qsc5433ZPsZC8cPXgfZ6chXFNasrKsn2XHJW1YS3lzkv2ek1lYOh_JLYw_ZsQEMjo7oCcSe-eReNDGxSV6WG9IXIIl0Ef0t-B1eEeA_JxgNBGiuUES4qQ3ScEQjbPGDikBiYSAo7FIwGrSu3F0t_m0JhqDGezz7GkPY8AX9_dZ9v3D-2-Xn_Krzx8Xl_OrXDZFFXNguq0V5x0wCarvGQetGkp7RSXrZau2gaapleoZQ1pLzasSNC0rRZHJgp1lix1XO7gWa29W4DfCgRF3gvODAB-NGlGg7LDrmo63qCpdas6KuuIVp63WtaxkYl3sWOtJrlArtNHDeAA9jFizFIO7EWVX1F1bJsB8B5DG_QdwGFFuJbbDFNthCi6aLjFm95_w7q7jYmWCwnEEi24Koq14V1NWseR8vXMOkKoztneJqbZuMS8Zq5uSsia5zh9xpaNxZVRaut4k_SDhzUFC8kT8FQeYQhCLr18ehSvvQvDY72stqNju8b_VvXrY4r397-KyPy_k8Wk
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2013_08_009
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_msard_2012_07_006
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_023_03347_8
crossref_primary_10_1080_08870446_2011_596203
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2019_09_028
crossref_primary_10_1097_DCR_0b013e3182686213
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_016_1423_2
crossref_primary_10_1093_humrep_der021
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12955_022_01926_w
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_017_1633_2
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_019_02282_x
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_015_1175_4
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11136_021_02961_8
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright COPYRIGHT 2010 BioMed Central Ltd.
Copyright ©2010 Taminiau-Bloem et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010 Taminiau-Bloem et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Copyright_xml – notice: COPYRIGHT 2010 BioMed Central Ltd.
– notice: Copyright ©2010 Taminiau-Bloem et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010 Taminiau-Bloem et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
AAYXX
CITATION
ISR
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-8-69
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
CrossRef
Gale In Context: Science
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
CrossRef
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList
MEDLINE - Academic




MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Public Health
EISSN 1477-7525
EndPage 69
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_eb9e996987ec4d2d8315484807dd5b4b
oai_biomedcentral_com_1477_7525_8_69
A233562036
10_1186_1477_7525_8_69
20637086
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
GeographicLocations United States
Netherlands
GeographicLocations_xml – name: Netherlands
– name: United States
GroupedDBID ---
-A0
0R~
29I
2VQ
2WC
3V.
4.4
44B
53G
5VS
7X7
7XC
88E
8C1
8FE
8FH
8FI
8FJ
AAFWJ
AAJSJ
AAWTL
ABDBF
ABUWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACHQT
ACPRK
ACRMQ
ADBBV
ADINQ
ADRAZ
ADUKV
AENEX
AFKRA
AFPKN
AFRAH
AHBYD
AHMBA
AHSBF
AHYZX
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMKLP
AMTXH
AOIJS
ATCPS
BAPOH
BAWUL
BCNDV
BENPR
BFQNJ
BHPHI
BMC
BPHCQ
BVXVI
C1A
C24
C6C
CCPQU
CGR
CS3
CUY
CVF
DIK
DU5
E3Z
EAD
EAP
EAS
EBD
EBLON
EBS
ECM
EIF
EJD
EMB
EMK
EMOBN
ESX
F5P
FRP
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
H13
HCIFZ
HMCUK
HYE
IAO
IHR
INH
INR
IPNFZ
IPY
ISR
ITC
KQ8
M1P
M48
M~E
NPM
O5R
O5S
OK1
P2P
PATMY
PGMZT
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
PSQYO
PYCSY
RBZ
RIG
RNS
ROL
RPM
RSV
SMD
SOJ
SV3
TR2
TUS
UKHRP
W2D
WOQ
WOW
XSB
AAYXX
CITATION
AFGXO
ABVAZ
AFNRJ
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-b614t-a3d75c889a3bacff38adc600fc0b3fb7c9a3b665ccf33e05bd842ad024c0e3b13
IEDL.DBID RBZ
ISSN 1477-7525
IngestDate Tue Oct 22 15:04:12 EDT 2024
Tue Sep 17 21:16:25 EDT 2024
Wed May 22 07:10:41 EDT 2024
Fri Oct 25 22:20:54 EDT 2024
Fri Feb 23 00:16:57 EST 2024
Fri Feb 02 04:05:03 EST 2024
Thu Aug 01 20:13:04 EDT 2024
Fri Sep 13 09:26:43 EDT 2024
Sat Sep 28 07:51:24 EDT 2024
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Language English
License 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.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-b614t-a3d75c889a3bacff38adc600fc0b3fb7c9a3b665ccf33e05bd842ad024c0e3b13
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-69
PMID 20637086
PQID 748950343
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_eb9e996987ec4d2d8315484807dd5b4b
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2915972
biomedcentral_primary_oai_biomedcentral_com_1477_7525_8_69
proquest_miscellaneous_748950343
gale_infotracmisc_A233562036
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A233562036
gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A233562036
crossref_primary_10_1186_1477_7525_8_69
pubmed_primary_20637086
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2010-07-16
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2010-07-16
PublicationDate_xml – month: 07
  year: 2010
  text: 2010-07-16
  day: 16
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
PublicationTitle Health and quality of life outcomes
PublicationTitleAlternate Health Qual Life Outcomes
PublicationYear 2010
Publisher BioMed Central Ltd
BioMed Central
BMC
Publisher_xml – name: BioMed Central Ltd
– name: BioMed Central
– name: BMC
References 16111061 - Palliat Med. 2005 Jul;19(5):381-8
16328904 - Qual Life Res. 2005 Dec;14(10):2247-57
15799784 - Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:21
11820675 - Soc Sci Med. 2002 Jan;54(1):11-21
15023229 - Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Mar 15;2:14
12565977 - Eur J Cancer. 2003 Feb;39(3):275-85
10400253 - Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jun;48(11):1507-15
12065262 - BMJ. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1417
17942496 - Palliat Med. 2007 Oct;21(7):581-6
11236851 - Qual Life Res. 2000;9(6):603-15
1301129 - Qual Life Res. 1992 Jun;1(3):211-8
18704756 - Qual Life Res. 2008 Oct;17(8):1093-102
8433390 - J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
19139138 - BMJ. 2009;338:a3006
17307086 - Lancet. 2007 Feb 17;369(9561):540-2
11809356 - J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;55(2):176-83
16022057 - Qual Life Res. 2005 Apr;14(3):629-39
16043345 - Eur J Cancer. 2005 Aug;41(12):1697-709
12769134 - Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):219-27
17884598 - J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Oct;60(10):1034-9
16125516 - J Psychosom Res. 2005 Jun;58(6):497-504
10474852 - Psychooncology. 1999 Jul-Aug;8(4):344-54
16809741 - J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 1;24(19):3178-86
References_xml
SSID ssj0023225
Score 2.0590563
Snippet Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This...
Background Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift...
BACKGROUNDNumerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift...
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift...
Abstract Background Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
biomedcentral
proquest
gale
crossref
pubmed
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 69
SubjectTerms Cognition
Follow-Up Studies
Health aspects
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Models, Psychological
Patient outcomes
Qualitative Research
Quality of life
Quality of Life - psychology
Radiotherapy
Research Design
Time Factors
Walking
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1La9wwEBYlp0ApfddpWkQp7EnEa9mWnNs2NKSF9tA2kJvQs1m62CHeJfTUv94ZybusyKGXXjWykTQjzTdi5hMh70PbyaCDZFa2JavBAbNOastcbY2DcMNVkUj7y9f24rL-fNVc7T31hTlhiR44LdyJN50HTA6hsbe1q5zkCLKxENq5xtQmnr5ltw2mplALzTTWFQnBRFM1E13jXLYnuzYmGaY5Z3Xuq8w9RRb_-2f1nrPKEyn3PNP5Y_JogpR0kabyhDzw_VPyMN3H0VRm9Iz8WdDZeA1Ym97p1a8ZXY50NeCNHjUecKunt9otp2qs3xTv02l8PhyTasdTqmmqvow04TRy0tI4ynSdCx94ig4RQSvVvaMB7Gu4Y5sb6mKOyHNyef7xx9kFmx5fYAY89ppp7kRjpew0N9qGwKV2FtBRsKXhwQiLgrZtrA2c-7IxTtaVduDybem5mfMX5KAfev-KUGEsgNDKOl7K2geH2uQAveBPtTaNLchppgN1k4g2FFJf5xLYhQoVqFCBSqq2K8hsq7DddzGwke29nh9Qn9nfYwOYm5rMTf3L3AryDq1BIXVGj7k5P_VmHNWn79_UouIc0CRAAhjT1CkMMGyrp1IHWA5k28p6Hmc9YW_bTEy3RqdQhAlxvR82o0LSoKbkNS_Iy2SDu3lVgDoFRKoFEZl1ZhPPJf3yOjKLVx2gW1Ed_Y-Vek0OU6aFYPP2mBysbzf-DQC4tXkb9-pfBKVE7A
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
– databaseName: PubMed Central
  dbid: RPM
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1La9wwEBZJToVS-u62aRGlkJOyXsu25Ny2oSEtpJS2gdyEnsmSjb2sdwk99a93RrZDRG69eiQz9nzjmREznwn5FKpaBh0ks7LKWAEBmNVSW-YKaxyUGy6PRNpn36vT8-LbRXmxQ8pxFiY27VuzOGyWN4fN4ir2Vq5u7HTsE5v-ODvOawjCIp_ukl0A6FiiD1UWInRgZ5zJajorhGCizEsmWYUcoTkEZZHh7HQy4b5MAlPk73_4lb4XptIWynsx6eQpeTIkk3TeK_2M7PjmOXncn8TRfsDoBfk7pwfdFWTZ9FYvrw_ooqPLFs_yqPGQsXq61m4xzGH9oXiSTuOPw7GdtjuimvZzl5EgnEY2Whq17A9yYYOnGAoxXaW6cTQAstpbtl1RF7tDXpLzky-_j0_Z8NsFZiBWb5jmTpRWylpzo20IXGpnIS8KNjM8GGFRUFWltYFzn5XGySLXDoK9zTw3M_6K7DVt498QKoyF9DO3jmey8MHVgAwOSRfcqdCmtBNylNhArXqKDYWk16kE_E-hLRXaUklV1RNyMBrsbl8saWT1YOVntGdy93ihXV-qAVjKm9rXqKDwtnC5kxyrOZy4d640hZmQj4gGhaQZDXblXOpt16mvv36qec455JGQDIBOw6LQgtpWD0MO8DqQZytZuZ-sBK-2iZiOoFMowla4xrfbTiFdUJnxgk_I6x6Dd881QntCRILO5MFTCbhY5BQfXOrtf-98Rx71jRWCzap9srdZb_17yNc25kP0z39L-kON
  priority: 500
  providerName: National Library of Medicine
– databaseName: Scholars Portal Open Access Journals
  dbid: M48
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3db9MwELdgvCAhxPc6BrIQUp8Mqe0kziSECmIaSPAAVNqb5a9sFVWyNa3GnvjXuXOyMlPeeO3ZkZ276_3OufuZkJd1Uana1Io5VWRMQgBmlTKOeemsh3TD80ik_flLcTSTn47z4z_1T8ML7P6Z2uF9UrPl4tXP88u34PBvosOr4vVEliUrc54zxYrqJrnFJWTpWMYnN18UOBpu7DQaxg4Ejtvz_-p8XyQBK_L6b_97XwtfaWnltVh1eI_cHUAmnfZWcZ_cCM0Dcqc_oaN949FD8mtKx90pbJxemMWPMZ13dNHiGR-1AZBsoEvj50N_1iXFE3YaLxTHMtvugBra92NG4nAaWWppXGV_wAsTAsUQiTCWmsbTGiyuvWDrM-pj1cgjMjv88P39ERuuY2AWYviKGeHL3ClVGWGNq2uhjHeAl2qXWVHb0qGgKHLnaiFClluvJDceQIDLgrAT8ZjsNG0TdgktrQNYyp0XmZKh9hVYjAAwBk-SxuZuRA4SHeiznnpDIxl2KgG_1KhAjQrUShfViIyvFLaZF1MdVWyNfIf6TJ4ef2iXJ3rwXB1sFSpcYBmc9NwrgVkeduJ7n1tpR-QFWoNGMo0Gq3VOzLrr9MdvX_WUCwH4EkACrGkYVLewbGeG5gd4Hci_lYzcT0aCt7tETK-MTqMIS-Sa0K47jTRCeSakGJEnvQ1u9sUBh5aQu45ImVhnsvFU0sxPI9c4rwDvlnzvfxTylNzuay5KNin2yc5quQ7PAMqt7PPoo78BFWtKgA
  priority: 102
  providerName: Scholars Portal
Title A 'short walk' is longer before radiotherapy than afterwards: a qualitative study questioning the baseline and follow-up design
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20637086
https://search.proquest.com/docview/748950343
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-69
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC2915972
https://doaj.org/article/eb9e996987ec4d2d8315484807dd5b4b
Volume 8
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1La9tAEF6a5FIope-6Tc1SCj4tlbWSdpWbHRLSQkJJGzC9LPtMTI0cIpvQU_96Z1aKm42PvejgmRUrz6znm_HMJ0I-haqWQQfJrKwyVkAAZrXUlrnCGgfphssjkfbpWXVyUXydlbN_9Y4H_-CPZfV5XAjBRJmXTLKq3iF7ORKqYF4-_blJrdAt4xxRr9vTM26vfzDXvkjCUWTt3_5tvhec0sbJe5Ho-Bl52kNIOuls_pw88s0L8qSrv9FurOgl-TOho_YKsDW91YtfIzpv6WKJFTxqPOBUT2-0m_fTV78p1s9pfF04NtG2B1TTbtoy0oLTyEFL4y678i0s8BQDIIJUqhtHA_jT8patr6mLPSGvyMXx0Y_DE9a_bIEZiNArprkTpZWy1txoGwKX2llAQ8FmhgcjLAqqqrQ2cO6z0jhZ5NpBiLeZ52bMX5PdZtn4t4QKYwF05tbxTBY-uBr8gQPUgjsV2pR2QA4SG6jrjlhDIdV1KoFTp9CACg2opKrqARndGWyzLiYystrSnKI9k7vHD8C7VH8ulTe1r3GDwtvC5U5yzOFwzt650hRmQD6iNyikymiwF-dSr9tWffl-riY554AeAQLAnnqlsIRtW92PNsDXgexaieZ-ogln2SZieud0CkXYANf45bpVSBJUZrzgA_Km88HNc-WAMgVkpgMiEu9MHjyVNPOryCSe14BmRf7ufwzynjzuOioEG1f7ZHd1s_YfAKitzJDsiJmAqzwcD8ne9Ojs2_kwFj3gelrIYTzDw1hh-wsfdkMt
link.rule.ids 108,230,315,730,783,787,867,888,2109,2228,24330,24949,27936,27937,31732,33279,33757,53804,53806,76140,76141
linkProvider BioMedCentral
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3Nb9MwFLfGOICEEJ-jMMBCSD1ZpLETO7t1iGmDbYexSRUXy59bRZVMTatpJ_51np20qumRa54d2e8j_j3rvV8Q-uzLSnjlBTGizAiDA5hUQhlimdEW0g2bRyLts_Py-Ip9nxSTHTRZ9cJ03X-QRHc9hfeNn029a5YL0D9kjps96bP4IV_Vj3XhL8ovI8Y54UVeEEHK6gF6CIk6CyF7cfhrnYoFN459R_3Yns5xe_4_ffCz5PiKLP_b3_KNwywttNw4uY6eoac95MTjbgvP0Y6rX6An3X0d7tqQXqI_YzxsbwCL4zs1-z3E0xbPmnDjh7UDXOvwXNlp3611j4PucPy9eCi6bQ-wwp0mI404jpy1OK6yu-6FCQ6HAzOAWgx6xx78r7kjy1tsYw3JK3R19O3y6zHpf85ANOhzQRS1vDBCVIpqZbynQlkD6MmbTFOvuQmCsiyM8ZS6rNBWsFxZgAQmc1SP6Gu0Wze1e4Mw1wZAam4szQRz3lbgPxSgGbyJKV2YATpIbCBvOyIOGaixUwl4hAwGlMGAUsiyGqDhymDreTHxEeXWyMNgz-Tt8UEzv5a9m0mnK1eFBXJnmM2toCHnC3351haa6QH6FLxBBmqNOtTuXKtl28qTnxdynFMKaBMgA6ypH-QbWLZRfSsEqCOwcSUj95OREPsmEeOV08kgCgVzNURLKwOpUJFRRgdor_PB9b5yQKUcMtkB4ol3JhtPJfX0JjKP5xWgX56__R-DfESPji_PTuXpyfmPd-hxV43ByajcR7uL-dK9B5C30B9ivP4FkMxT2A
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1bb9MwFLbGkBASQlxHYYCFkPpkLY1zcfbWAdXGZUKDSYMXy9etWpRUTatpT_x1znHSqqGPvFX1ceScS_wd65zPhLz3WSG88oIZkUUsgQ2YFUIZZhOjLaQbNg5E2t9Os-Pz5PNFerFDfq16YdruP0ii257C29qXU-_q5QL0D5njZk96GT7k8MNcH8ysb-NfZAejJM9ZnsYpEywr7pC7kKkneKvD2dHvdS6GfhwajzrZjs9xe_4_jfBlb_8KNP_bH_ON3axfabmxdU0ekYcd5qTj1kkekx1XPSEP2gM72vYhPSV_xnTYXAEYpzeqvB7SaUPLGo_8qHYAbB2dKzvt2rVuKSqPhvvFseq2OaSKtqoMPOI0kNbSsMr2vBcmOIo7JqJaCoqnHhywvmHLGbWhiOQZOZ98-vnhmHW3MzAN-lwwxW2eGiEKxbUy3nOhrAH45E2kude5wYEsS43xnLso1VYksbKACUzkuB7x52S3qiv3gtBcG0CpsbE8EonztgAH4oDN4EmJ0qkZkMOeDeSsZeKQyI3dHwGXkGhAiQaUQmbFgAxXBlvPC5mPyLYkj9CevaeHP-r5pewCWTpduAIXmDuT2NgKjkkfNuZbm-pED8g79AaJ3BoVFu9cqmXTyJMfZ3Iccw5wEzADrKkT8jU6sOp6IUAdSMfVk9zvSULwm94wXTmdxCGsmKsgXBqJrEJpxBM-IHutD67fKwZYmkMqOyB5zzt7L94fqaZXgXo8LgD-5vHL_zHIW3Lv-8eJ_Hpy-uUVud9WY-RslO2T3cV86V4DyFvoNyFc_wLznVOj
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+%27short+walk%27+is+longer+before+radiotherapy+than+afterwards%3A+a+qualitative+study+questioning+the+baseline+and+follow-up+design&rft.jtitle=Health+and+quality+of+life+outcomes&rft.au=Taminiau-Bloem%2C+Elsbeth&rft.au=van+Zuuren%2C+Florence&rft.au=Koeneman%2C+Margot&rft.au=Rapkin%2C+Bruce&rft.date=2010-07-16&rft.pub=BioMed+Central+Ltd&rft.issn=1477-7525&rft.eissn=1477-7525&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=69&rft.epage=69&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2F1477-7525-8-69&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=oai_biomedcentral_com_1477_7525_8_69
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1477-7525&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1477-7525&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1477-7525&client=summon