4.7 Article

Establishing an Expert Consensus on Key Indicators of the Quality of Life among Breast Cancer Survivors: A Modified Delphi Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11072041

关键词

breast cancer survivorship; health-related quality of life; Delphi study; guidance

资金

  1. European Union [875406]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to establish an expert consensus on the relevance and key indicators of quality of life in breast cancer survivors' clinical practice, through a two-stage online Delphi process evaluating the domains and subdomains of quality of life.
(1) Background: The needs of cancer survivors are often not reflected in practice. One of the main barriers of the use of patient-reported outcomes is associated with data collection and the interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) due to a multitude of instruments and measuring approaches. The aim of the study was to establish an expert consensus on the relevance and key indicators of quality of life in the clinical practice of breast cancer survivors. (2) Methods: Potential indicators of the quality of life of breast cancer survivors were extracted from the established quality of life models, depicting survivors' perspectives. The specific domains and subdomains of quality of life were evaluated in a two-stage online Delphi process, including an international and multidisciplinary panel of experts. (3) Results: The first round of the Delphi process was completed by 57 and the second by 37 participants. A consensus was reached for the Physical and Psychological domains, and on eleven subdomains of quality of life. The results were further supported by the additional ranking of importance of the subdomains in the second round. (4) Conclusions: The current findings can serve to optimize the use of instruments and address the challenges related to data collection and interpretation as the facilitators of the adaption in routine practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据