{"title":"头颈癌患者健康相关生活质量结局的社会决定因素","authors":"S. Rogers, D. Lowe, A. Kanatas","doi":"10.3390/oral1040031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The influence of area-based and individual indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient concerns following head and neck cancer is complex and under-reported. The aim of this study is to use baseline data collected as part of a randomised controlled trial to provide greater detail on the attribution of SES to University of Washington Quality of Life version 4 (UWQOL v4), Distress Thermometer and European Quality of Life Five-Dimension Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) outcomes. A total of 288 trial patients attended baseline clinics a median (Interquartile (IQR)) of 103 (71–162) days after the end of treatment. Area-based SES was assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019. Thirty-eight per cent (110/288) of patients lived in the most deprived IMD rank quintile. Less than good overall quality of life (31% overall) was associated with current working situation (p = 0.008), receipt of financial benefits (p < 0.001), total household income (p = 0.003) and use of tobacco (p = 0.001). Income and employment were significant patient level indicators predictors of HRQOL outcomes after case-mix adjustment. The number of Patient Concerns Inventory items selected varied significantly by overall clinical tumour clinical stage (p < 0.001) and by treatment (p < 0.001) but not by area IMD or patient-level deprivation indicators. In conclusion, interventions to improve employment and finance could make a substantial positive effect on HRQOL outcomes and concerns.","PeriodicalId":19616,"journal":{"name":"Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes for Head and Neck Cancer Patients\",\"authors\":\"S. Rogers, D. Lowe, A. Kanatas\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/oral1040031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The influence of area-based and individual indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient concerns following head and neck cancer is complex and under-reported. The aim of this study is to use baseline data collected as part of a randomised controlled trial to provide greater detail on the attribution of SES to University of Washington Quality of Life version 4 (UWQOL v4), Distress Thermometer and European Quality of Life Five-Dimension Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) outcomes. A total of 288 trial patients attended baseline clinics a median (Interquartile (IQR)) of 103 (71–162) days after the end of treatment. Area-based SES was assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019. Thirty-eight per cent (110/288) of patients lived in the most deprived IMD rank quintile. Less than good overall quality of life (31% overall) was associated with current working situation (p = 0.008), receipt of financial benefits (p < 0.001), total household income (p = 0.003) and use of tobacco (p = 0.001). Income and employment were significant patient level indicators predictors of HRQOL outcomes after case-mix adjustment. The number of Patient Concerns Inventory items selected varied significantly by overall clinical tumour clinical stage (p < 0.001) and by treatment (p < 0.001) but not by area IMD or patient-level deprivation indicators. In conclusion, interventions to improve employment and finance could make a substantial positive effect on HRQOL outcomes and concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/oral1040031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/oral1040031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Social Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes for Head and Neck Cancer Patients
The influence of area-based and individual indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient concerns following head and neck cancer is complex and under-reported. The aim of this study is to use baseline data collected as part of a randomised controlled trial to provide greater detail on the attribution of SES to University of Washington Quality of Life version 4 (UWQOL v4), Distress Thermometer and European Quality of Life Five-Dimension Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) outcomes. A total of 288 trial patients attended baseline clinics a median (Interquartile (IQR)) of 103 (71–162) days after the end of treatment. Area-based SES was assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019. Thirty-eight per cent (110/288) of patients lived in the most deprived IMD rank quintile. Less than good overall quality of life (31% overall) was associated with current working situation (p = 0.008), receipt of financial benefits (p < 0.001), total household income (p = 0.003) and use of tobacco (p = 0.001). Income and employment were significant patient level indicators predictors of HRQOL outcomes after case-mix adjustment. The number of Patient Concerns Inventory items selected varied significantly by overall clinical tumour clinical stage (p < 0.001) and by treatment (p < 0.001) but not by area IMD or patient-level deprivation indicators. In conclusion, interventions to improve employment and finance could make a substantial positive effect on HRQOL outcomes and concerns.