Læknablaðið - 15.08.1996, Side 45

LÆKNABLAÐIÐ 1996; 82
591
cian-rated clinical outcome variables do not
necessary measure the patient’s QoL. Clinical
and demographic variables were in the long
run stronger predictors than patients’ self-as-
sessments, but the QoL measures added
unique information. The psychometric analy-
ses of the QLQ-C36 confirmed good face and
internal validity, reliability, construct and ex-
ternal validity, responsiveness over time and
ability to differentiate between clinical sub-
groups of patients. The same held true for the
study-specific MM module. Despite perceived
burden of treatment, very few patients re-
vealed thoughts about treatment. They valued
treatment and communicated mostly with their
family about side effects. Attending nurses
both over- and underestimated several aspects
of the patient’s QoL while relatives seemed to
be more adequate proxy raters. The nursing
staff was equally eager to treat and receive
treatment as the doctors. The staff found their
work meaningful and rewarding.
Conclusions: The EORTC QLQ is applica-
ble in patients with generalised malignant mel-
anoma on chemotherapy, seems clinically rele-
vant and adds information beyond the tradi-
tional biomedical parameters. Despite
pessimistic results and perceived burden of
treatment both patients and personnel advo-
cated chemotherapy.