Background
Quality of life (QOL) issues are of interest in oncology because effective modern methods of treatment and detection have led to an increase in the number of long-term survivors [
1,
2]. Hence recent randomized cancer trials include QOL as an outcome measure [
3,
4], and intervention methods to enhance QOL have been articulated [
5,
6].
The issues of concern include, the impact of cancer on the QOL of the patient and family caregiver [
7‐
12], the relationship with socio-demographic variables [
13‐
15], side effects of treatment [
16‐
19], and how patient-caregiver characteristics interact to affect the QOL of the patient-caregiver dyad [
20‐
25]. These issues are related to the nature of the disease. For example, recent studies indicate that clinically severe anxiety, depression and fatigue, prevalent in at least one-fifth of cancer patients, do predict poor QOL [
26‐
28]. In the case of family caregivers, the burden of caring for their relatives [
29] is associated with significant levels of anxiety and depression [
30,
31]. The problematic issues for patients include sexual dysfunction associated with treatment, body image, fears over child bearing potential, and maintaining a household and career [
32‐
35]. Hence, in the two or three years following diagnosis and treatment, women with breast and gynecologic cancers have significantly lower QOL domain scores than matched general population groups [
8,
36,
37]. However, the robust finding from longitudinal studies is that, majority of long-term (≥ 5 years) survivors have QOL domain scores that are either similar to or higher than the general population[
7,
9‐
11]. The findings for the association of socio-demographic characteristics (especially age and education) with QOL are conflicting [
6,
9,
13,
15,
38].
For chemotherapy, QOL decreased up to six months after treatment[
19,
36,
38], but tended to return to normal levels at 12 months [
16,
22,
39,
40]. It appears that radiotherapy has a negative and chronic impact on QOL [
17], and that surgical patients fare better than those who receive radiotherapy [
41].
These QOL issues in cancer care have rarely been tested in developing countries where a rising incidence of breast and gynecologic cancers has been noted [
29,
32,
42,
43]. Sudan, a country in north Africa (population: 35 million), is typical of a developing country that has recently articulated a National Cancer Control Program (NCCP) in collaboration with the WHO [
44]. We considered that it would be an ideal place to test the QOL issues highlighted above, with a view to enhancing the quality of delivery of the NCCP. According to statistics from the country's Ministry of Health, cancer is now the third leading cause of death, after malaria and viral pneumonia, accounting for 5% of all deaths. The commonest cancers in women are those of the breast, cervix and ovary, with breast and cervical cancer accounting for 50% of all cancers among Sudanese women [
44]. The main radiotherapy center is at the Radiation and Isotope Center, Khartoum (RICK).
This report is based on subjects assessed at RICK, Khartoum, in 2005/2006.
Our review of the psycho-oncology literature as it pertains to QOL showed that researchers seemed to have paid scant attention to the following areas: First, the few studies on family caregiver QOL [
20‐
25,
45] did not assess the impact of caregiver impression of patient's QOL on the QOL of the patient and that of the caregiver. Furthermore, there is paucity of information on the relationship of patient's variables with the caregiver's QOL. This perspective is important because the psychological literature on "expressed emotions" (i.e., the impact of emotional interactions in the family on clinical outcome) has consistently shown that family caregiver's emotional appraisal of the patient has an impact on clinical outcome [
46]. Katschnig [
47] has suggested that it is necessary to involve family members for additional views on aspects of QOL. Second, the relatively few studies that compared QOL across female cancer types [
8,
14,
24,
48‐
50] did not compare women with breast and gynecologic cancers. In addition, there is a paucity of studies that compared the QOL of women with cancer and those with other chronic medical illnesses. Our study was designed to help fill these gaps in knowledge.
The objectives of the study were as follows:
- to compare the subjective QOL of Sudanese women living in stable condition with breast, cervical and ovarian cancer and those of their family caregivers, using the WHO 26 – item Quality of Life Instrument (the WHOQOL – Bref);
- to compare their ratings with those of a socio-demographically matched general population sample, as well as diabetic and psychiatric women patients similarly assessed in previous studies in Sudan [
51‐
54];
- to assess the association of patient's QOL with socio-demographic variables, age at onset of illness, duration of illness, as wells as treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy;
- to examine the association of patient's demographic and clinical characteristics with the QOL of the family caregiver
- to examine the concordance between the QOL ratings of the patients and the family caregivers' ratings (or impressions) of the patients' QOL;
- to assess the characteristics of the patient, illness and family caregiver that can predict the patient's and caregiver's subjective QOL.
Based on our previous findings and evidence from the literature, we hypothesized as follows: First, most patients would be satisfied with items related to family supports and general well being; but not with items related to the poor national economy. There would be no significant differences in QOL domain scores between the group of cancer patients and between the family caregiver groups. While cancer patients and their caregivers would have significantly lower QOL scores than the general population, they would have similar scores with diabetic and psychiatric patients in the same cultural setting. Second, socio-demographic variables would have no significant association with QOL. Furthermore, patients with shorter duration of illness and currently on radiotherapy would have lower QOL scores.
Third, patient-caregiver characteristics would mutually interact and be associated with each other's QOL. In addition, there would be highly significant concordance between patient's ratings and caregiver's ratings of the patient. Fourth, the most significant predictor of the patient's and caregiver's QOL would be the caregiver's impression of the patient's QOL [
51‐
54].
The clinical relevance of these hypotheses is that they could help to define a subset of stable patients and their caregivers whom clinicians need to give focused attention, and identify the patient and family characteristics which can be tapped as adjuncts to drug treatment to make for better quality of care.
Results
Socio-demographic characteristics (Tables 1A &1B)
Table 1A
Socio-demographic characteristics of patients by diagnosis of patient Vs general population control group
Pt gender: M/F (%) | 0/117 | 0/46 | 0/18 | | | | 0/181 | 0/177 | |
Age of pt (SD) | 43.0(10.0) | 51.1(12.3) | 37.7(11.8) | 13.2 | 2/178 | 0.0001 | 44.6(11.5) | 44.6(11.7) | ns |
Single/married (%) | 24(20.5)/74(63.2) | 2(4.3)/25(54.3) | 4(22.2)/14(77.8) | 20.8 | 4 | 0.0001 | 30(16.6)/113(62.4) | - | |
Unemployed/student(%) | 95(82.6)/7(6.1) | 41(93.2)/1(2.3) | 14(82.4)/2(11.8) | | | | 150(82.9)/9(4.9) | - | |
Medium & high skill | 13(11.3) | 2(4.5) | 1(5.9) | 4.3 | 4 | ns | 16(8.8) | - | |
Illiterate/primary (%) | 22(19.5)/54(47.8) | 23(50.0)/12(26.1) | 4(22.2)/5(27.8) | 18.6 | 4 | 0.001 | 120(67.8 of 177) | 107(60.5) | 0.18 |
High schl & ollege | 37(32.7) | 11(23.9) | 9(50.0) | | | | 57(32.0 of 177) | 70(57.5) | |
Age at onset(SD) | 39.9(9.9) | 48.0(12.0) | 34.1(0.6) | 14.5 | 2/178 | 0.0001 | 41.4(11.4) | | |
Duration illness (yrs) | 3.2(2.3) | 3.1(2.4) | 3.6(5.2) | | | ns | 3.2(2.7) | | |
Table 1B
Socio-demographic characteristics of family caregivers by diagnosis of patient Vs general population control group
Carer: M/F (%) | 76(65.0)/41(35.0) | 23(50.0)/23(50.0) | 14(77.8)/4(22.2) | 5.2 | 2 | 0.08 | 113(62.4)/68(37.6) | 112(62.4)/69(38.1) | |
Carer's age(SD) | 43.1(12.7) | 41.8(15.4) | 46.4(9.4) | 0.8 | 2/178 | ns | 43.1(13.1) | 43.0(13.1) | ns |
Carer illiterate/primary schl (%) | 18(15.4)/25(21.4) | 11(23.9)/13(28.3) | 3(16.7)/5(27.8) | 3.5 | 4 | ns | 75(41.4) | 63(34.8) | |
High schl & ollege | 74(63.2) | 22(47.8) | 10(55.6) | | | | 106(58.6) | 118(65.2) | ns |
Single/married(%) | 35(29.9)/76(65.0) | 21(45.7)/23(50.0) | 2(11.1)/16(88.9) | 9.4 | 4 | 0.05 | | | |
Unemployed/student(%) | 33(33.7)/31(31.6) | 19(42.2)/16(35.6) | 5(27.8)/4(22.2) | 4.9 | 4 | ns | | | |
Medium & High skill | 34(34.7) | 10(22.2) | 9(50.0) | | | | | | |
Carer: parent/sibling(%) | 10(8.5)/35(29.9) | 2(4.3)/17(37.0) | 1(5.6)/6(33.3) | 16.5 | 8 | 0.04 | | | |
Carer: spouse (%) | 38(32.5) | 7(15.2) | 10(55.6) | | | | | | |
The 181 patients consisted of 117(64.6%) women with breast cancer, 42(23.2%) with cervical cancer, 4(2.2%) with endometrial cancer and 18(9.9%) with ovarian cancer, mean age 44.6 years. (Note: For the purpose of analysis, data for the cervical and endometrial cancer cases were merged, because of the small number of the later. Hence we have 46 cases of cancer of cervix and uterus. Henceforth, we refer to this group as "cervical cancer"). Cervical cancer patients were significantly older than others (P < 0.0001). The patients were predominantly married (62.4%), formally not employed (i.e., housewives, 82.9%), and only 31.5% had up to high school education. They had been ill for 3.2 (SD2.7) years. Although the cervical cancer patients were significantly more likely to be divorced or widowed (P < 0.001), there were no significant differences in occupation and education between the groups of patients (P > 0.05). While those with cervical cancer were significantly older at onset of illness than the others (P < 0.0001), there were no significant differences in duration of illness (P > 0.05).
Tables
1A and
1B show that the patients and caregivers were well matched with their respective general population control groups by gender, age and education (P > 0.05).
Their family caregivers consisted of 113 (62.4%) men and 68 (37.6%) women, mean age 43.1 years (Table
1B). The caregivers were predominantly married (63.5%), either unemployed or in low skill occupation (55.3%), and 106 (58.6%) attained at least high school education. There were no significant differences in socio-demographic variables for the caregiver groups. There were 55 (30.4%) spouses.
Satisfaction with items of QOL: (Tables 2A &2B)
Table 2A
Comparative level of group satisfaction with QOL items: for patients and caregivers' impression of patients' QOL
Highest satisfaction: ≥ 75% subjects | Moderate satisfaction: 66–74% subjects | Bare satisfaction: 50–65% subjects | Dissatisfied: < 50% subjects |
| 1. Patients with breast, cervical | and ovarian cancer | |
Overall QOL(79%), feeling pain (87%), med treatment(75%), life meaningful (82%), ability concentrate(96%), physical environ(84%), energy(95%), bodily appearance(92%), ability to get around(98%), sleep satisfaction(91%), ADL(81%), work capacity(80%), self satisfaction(82%), personal relations (77%), friends' support(79%), living place(81%), negative feelings(85%) | Health satisfaction (69%), enjoy life (72%), access to health service (72%) | Feeling safe(64%), satisfaction with sex (53%) | Money for needs(39%), information available(35%), leisure opportunity (28%), transport satisfaction (33%) |
| 2. Caregivers' impression of breast/ | cervical ovarian cancer | patients' QOL |
Overall QOL(89%), health satisfaction (85%), life meaningful(96%), concentration(96%), physical environ(84%), energy(93%), bodily appearance(94%), getting around(97%), sleep (80%), ADL (79%), work capacity(80%), self satisfaction (90%), personal relations(80%), friends' support(82%), living place(85%) | Feeling safe(67%), access to health service (71%) | Feeling pain(64%), satisfaction with sex(55%) | Dependence on med treatment (25%), enjoy life(5%), money (41%), information availability (33%), leisure opportunity (28%), transport (28%), negative feeling (9%) |
Table 2B
Comparative level of group satisfaction with QOL items: Family caregivers
Highest satisfaction ≥ 75% of subjects | Moderate satisfaction: 66 – 74% of subjects | Bare satisfaction: 50 – 65% of subjects | Dissatisfied < 50% of subjects |
| 3. Family caregivers | of patients with breast, | cervical and ovarian cancer |
Overall QOL(99%), health satisfaction (93%), feeling pain(94%), med treatment (92%), enjoy life(94%), life meaningful (96%), concentration ability(99%), feeling safe(83%), physical environ(93%), energy (98%), bodily appearance(98%), getting around(99%), sleep satisfaction(99%), ADL (93%), work capacity(93%), self satisfaction (93%), personal relations(92%), friends' support(98%), living place satisfaction (90%), access to health service (77%) | Satisfaction with sex (66%) | Availability of health information (53%) | Money for needs (49%), leisure opportunity (49%), transport satisfaction (41%) |
Using the operational definition for group satisfaction with QOL items, Tables
2A and
2B show that the patients and caregivers were generally highly satisfied with majority of the items. The interesting pattern that emerged was that the few areas of dissatisfaction concerned items related to their poor national material circumstance, viz: money for needs, availability of information about their health problems, opportunity for leisure, and transportation. On the other hand, the subjects expressed high levels of satisfaction with items related to their personal strengths (e.g., overall QOL, life meaningful, self satisfaction, lack of negative feelings), and available social support (e.g., support from friends, personal relations, place of living). The caregivers' ratings of patients were remarkably in agreement with patients' ratings.
Differences in QOL domain scores between the groups: association with caregiver relationship to patient, and comparison with control group and caregiver impression: Table 3
Table 3
Differences in QOL domain scores for patient, family caregiver groups and general population control groups
A: For patients | | | | | | | | |
Physical health 6-domain | 13.6 (1.4) | 12.9 (2.3) | 13.4 (1.1) | ns | 13.4 (1.6) | 10.8 (2.6) | 11.3 | 0.001 |
Psychological health 6-domain | 21.3 (2.5) | 20.1 (3.8) | 20.9 (2.9) | ns | 20.9 (2.9) | 17.9 (3.6) | 8.6 | 0.001 |
Independence | 17.6 (2.2) | 16.5 (3.1) | 16.8 (2.2) | ns | 17.2 (2.5) | 14.7 (3.6) | 8.2 | 0.001 |
Social relations | 12.3 (2.9) | 11.9 (3.2) | 11.6 (3.6) | ns | 12.1 (3.0) | 11.0 (2.4) | 3.4 | 0.001 |
Environment | 30.6 (5.1) | 29.5 (6.4) | 29.9 (5.1) | ns | 30.3 (5.4) | 24.9 (5.5) | 9.1 | 0.001 |
Spiritual | 4.5 (0.8) | 4.3 (1.1) | 4.2 (1.1) | ns | 4.4 (0.9) | 3.9 (1.1) | 4.9 | 0.001 |
General facet on health & QOL | 8.4 (1.8) | 7.8 (2.4) | 8.4 (1.7) | ns | 8.3 (1.9) | 7.2 (1.8) | 5.3 | 0.001 |
Physical health 4-domain | 31.2 (3.4) | 29.4 (5.3) | 30.3 (3.1) | ns | 30.7 (4.0) | 25.6 (5.7) | 9.9 | 0.001 |
Psychological health 4-domain | 25.9 (3.1) | 24.5 (4.7) | 25.1 (3.8) | ns | 25.4 (3.7) | 21.8 (4.3) | 8.2 | 0.001 |
B. For caregivers of the patients | | | | | | | | |
Physical health 6-domain | 14.3 (1.2) | 14.4 (1.2) | 14.7 (0.8) | ns | 14.4 (1.1) | 11.3 (2.4) | 15.7 | 0.001 |
Psychological health 6-domain | 22.1 (1.7) | 21.8 (1.9) | 22.2 (1.5) | ns | 22.0 (1.8) | 18.8 (3.5) | 10.8 | 0.001 |
Independence | 18.9 (1.9) | 18.8 (2.2) | 19.1 (1.6) | ns | 18.9 (1.9) | 15.3 (3.0) | 13.5 | 0.001 |
Social relations | 13.4 (2.0) | 13.4 91.9) | 13.6 (2.4) | ns | 13.4 (2.0) | 11.6(2.4) | 7.6 | 0.001 |
Environment | 32.9 (4.6) | 32.3 (5.3) | 30.8 (3.4) | ns | 32.5 (4.7) | 25.9 (5.9) | 11.5 | 0.001 |
Spiritual | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.7 (0.6) | 4.5 (0.6) | ns | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.0 (0.9) | 8.7 | 0.001 |
General facet on health & QOL | 9.3 (1.1) | 9.1 (1.2) | 9.4 (1.1) | ns | 9.3 (1.1) | 7.6 (1.7) | 11.3 | 0.001 |
Physical health 4-domain | 33.2 (3.1) | 33.2 (3.3) | 33.8 (2.2) | ns | 33.3 (3.0) | 26.6 (4.9) | 15.5 | 0.001 |
Physical health 4-domain | 26.8 (2.1) | 26.5 (2.5) | 26.7 (1.9) | ns | 26.7 (2.2) | 22.8 (4.1) | 11.1 | 0.001 |
In all the domains, the three groups of cancer patients had similar scores (P > 0.05). Similarly, there were no significant differences for the corresponding family caregiver groups (P > 0.05). The caregiver ratings of the patients were in the same direction, except for the independence domain, where patients with cancer of the ovary were rated as having significantly higher scores than those with cervical cancer (F = 4.9, df = 2/177, P = 0.008). In addition, spouses (all men) rated the patients as having a higher QOL than the parents rated them in the social relations domain (P < 0.0001).
Similarly, there was a tendency for patients being cared for by their spouses to have the highest scores. This trend reached significance for only the social relations domain (F = 7.9, df = 4/176, P < 0.0001).
For the caregivers, there was a tendency for parents to have the lowest QOL scores. This reached significance for physical health (P < 0.0001); psychological health (P < 0.0001); independence (P < 0.0001); and general facet (P < 0.0001).
In view of the similarity of QOL domain scores among the cancer groups and among the caregiver groups, we used the total group scores of the patients and caregivers to compare with their respective matched general population groups.
In all the QOL domains, the patients and family caregivers had much significantly higher scores than corresponding matched general population control groups (P < 0.001) (Table
3). In addition, the patients had significantly higher scores than psychiatric(N = 136) and diabetic (N = 111) women patients in Sudan who were similarly assessed, even after controlling for socio-demographic differences (t ranged from 5.7 to 14.1, P < 0.0001). In all the domains, caregivers had significantly higher scores than the patients (P < 0.0001).
Association of socio-demographic variables with QOL domain scores (Table 4)
Table 4
Association of patient and caregiver socio-demographics with QOL: significant covariates of QOL in ANCOVA
A: For patients | | | |
Marital status: married > single | Social relations Spiritual | 16.7 6.8 | 0.001 0.01 |
Occupation: medium/high skill > unemployed | Psychological health 6-domain Spiritual General facet on health & QOL | 3.8 3.8 5.5 | 0.05 0.05 0.02 |
Education: high school/college > illiterate | Environment | 4.9 | 0.03 |
Education of caregiver | Environment | 4.9 | 0.03 |
B. For caregivers of patients | | | |
Marital status of patient | Physical health 6-domain | 5.2 | 0.02 |
Education of patient | Spiritual | 7.3 | 0.008 |
Age of patient | Psychological health 6-domain Spiritual | 6.5 6.6 | 0.01 0.01 |
Education of caregiver | Physical health 6-domain Psychological health 6-domain Independence Environment Spiritual | 7.7 10.5 7.6 29.4 10.9 | 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.001 |
Marital status of caregiver | Physical health 6-domain Independence Social relations | | |
Occupation of caregiver | Physical health 6-domain Psychological health 6-domain | | |
Age of caregiver | Physical health, physical health, independence, social relations, general facet | 6.3 – 30.9 | 0.001 |
Caregiver's sex | Psychological health, social relations, environment, general facet | 5.6 – 15.2 | 0.02 – 0.001 |
In multivariate analysis, where all the socio-demographic variables (patients' and caregivers') were simultaneously entered in ANCOVA as covariates, and QOL domain scores as dependent variables, we found that the significant covariates for patients were marital status, occupation and education of the patient, as well as education of the caregiver. The pattern that emerged was that, higher QOL of scores for patients were associated with patient being married, employed in medium skill/high skill occupation, and having attained at least high school education.
When the multivariate analysis was done using the caregiver's QOL domain scores as dependent variables, the following patterns emerged. First, the patient's socio-demographic variables were significantly associated with the caregiver's QOL domains. Hence, the following patient characteristics were associated with higher caregiver QOL: patient being married, older, and with at least high school level of education. Second, caregivers who were male and older had much significantly higher QOL scores in most of the domains (P mostly < 0.01). Third, the following caregiver characteristics were associated with higher caregiver QOL scores: at least high school education, being married and engaged in medium skill/high skill work (P mostly < 0.01). In other words, the patient's socio-demographic variables were more frequently associated with the caregiver's QOL than the caregiver's socio-demographics were associated with the patient's QOL (see Table
4).
Association of clinical variables with QOL domain scores (Tables 5, 6, 7)
Table 5
Correlation of duration of illness with QOL domain scores (Pearson's r)
Physical health (N = 180) | 0.29 | 0.000 | Caregiver impression pt's physical health (N = 180) | 0.22 | 0.003 |
Psychological health (N = 180) | 0.29 | 0.000 | Caregiver impression pt's psychol health (N = 179) | 0.19 | 0.008 |
Independence (N = 181) | 0.23 | 0.001 | Caregiver impression pt's independence (N = 180) | 0.17 | 0.02 |
Social relations (N = 179) | 0.15 | 0.04 | Caregiver impression pt's social relations (N = 179) | 0.15 | 0.04 |
Environment (N = 180) | 0.26 | 0.000 | Caregiver's impression pt's environment (N = 178) | 0.22 | 0.003 |
General facet on health & QOL (N = 180) | 0.16 | 0.03 | Caregiver's impression pt's general facet (N = 180) | 0.16 | 0.03 |
Table 6
Comparison of QOL domain scores: subjects feeling currently ill versus not feeling currently ill
Physical health | 12.7 (1.7) | 14.2 (1.1) | 6.6 | 178 | 0.001 | 14.3 (1.2) | 14.5 (1.1) | | | ns |
Psychological health | 19.8 (3.3) | 22.4 (1.5) | 6.7 | 178 | 0.001 | 21.9 (1.8) | 22.1 (1.7) | | | ns |
Independence | 16.3 (2.7) | 18.4 (1.8) | 6.1 | 179 | 0.001 | 18.8 (2.0) | 18.9 (1.8) | | | ns |
Social relations | 10.8 (3.2) | 13.6 (1.9) | 6.9 | 177 | 0.001 | 13.1 (2.2) | 13.8 (1.8) | 2.1 | 176 | 0.04 |
Environment | 28.2 (5.3) | 32.7 (4.6) | 6.1 | 178 | 0.001 | 31.8 (4.7) | 33.5 (4.4) | 2.5 | 176 | 0.02 |
Spiritual | 4.1 (1.1) | 4.8 (0.5) | 5.6 | 178 | 0.001 | 4.6 (0.6) | 4.8 (0.5) | | | ns |
General facet health & QOL | 7.3 (2.0) | 9.4 (1.2) | 8.2 | 178 | 0.001 | 9.1 (1.2) | 9.4 (1.0) | | | ns |
Table 7
Relationship of chemotherapy and radiotherapy with QOL of patients
Physical health | 13.4 (1.6) | 13.3 (1.7) | ns | 13.5 (1.4) | 12.9 (2.2) | 2.3 | 176 | 0.03 |
Psychological health | 21.0 (3.0) | 20.8 (2.8) | ns | 21.3 (2.4) | 19.7 (4.1) | 2.3 | 176 | 0.002 |
Independence | 17.3 (2.5) | 17.1 (2.6) | ns | 17.4 (2.5) | 16.7 (2.9) | 1.6 | | ns |
Social relations | 11.9 (3.0) | 12.8 (2.9) | ns | 12.4 (2.8) | 10.9 (3.4) | 2.9 | 175 | 0.005 |
Environment | 30.1 (5.5) | 30.9 (5.5) | ns | 30.7 (5.2) | 28.9 (6.1) | 1.9 | 176 | 0.06 |
Spiritual | 4.4 (0.9) | 4.5 (0.9) | ns | 4.5 (0.8) | 4.1 (1.1) | 2.6 | 176 | 0.01 |
General facet on Health & QOL | 8.3 (1.9) | 8.2 (2.0) | ns | 8.4 (1.9) | 7.8 (2.3) | 1.7 | | ns |
Duration of illness (Table 5)
The duration of illness was significantly correlated with all the patient's QOL domain scores (P mostly < 0.01), except for the spiritual domain(P > 0.05). But patient's duration of illness was not significantly correlated with caregiver's QOL domain scores (P > 0.05). In line with the rating of patients, QOL domain scores derived from caregiver's rating of the patient were significantly correlated with patient's duration of illness in all domains (P mostly < 0.01), except for the spiritual domain (P > 0.05).
Subject currently feeling ill (Table 6)
In all the domains, the patients who felt currently well had much significantly higher scores than those who felt currently ill (P < 0.001). This trend was evident for the family caregivers, in which case the significant differences were noted for only the social relations (P = 0.04) and environment domains (P = 0.02).
Association of chemotherapy and radiotherapy with QOL (Table 7)
While there were no significant differences in QOL domain scores between those currently on chemotherapy and those not on chemotherapy (P > 0.05), the patients on radiotherapy tended to have higher scores than those not on radiotherapy. This reached significance for the following domains: physical health, psychological health, social relations and spiritual (P mostly < 0.01). However, according to the caregivers' ratings of the patients, subjects on chemotherapy were judged to have higher scores (compared with those not on chemotherapy) for the psychological health domain (P = 0.009). In addition the caregivers rated patients on radiotherapy as having higher scores for the social relations domain (P = 0.006). There was a non-significant tendency for relatives of patients on radiotherapy to have higher QOL domain scores.
Concordance of patients' ratings and caregiver impression patients' QOL (Table 8)
Table 8
Concordance of patients' rating of QOL and caregiver impression of patients' QOL
Physical health | 13.4 (1.7) | 12.9 (1.7) | 3.9 | 178 | 0.001 | 0.56 | 0.001 |
Psychological health | 20.9 (2.9) | 19.2 (1.6) | 10.1 | 177 | 0.001 | 0.45 | 0.001 |
Independence | 17.2 (2.5) | 14.8 (1.5) | 14.1 | 179 | 0.001 | 0.35 | 0.001 |
Social relations | 12.1 (3.0) | 12.2 (2.6) | 0.5 | | ns | 0.64 | 0.001 |
Environment | 30.4 (5.4) | 34.6 (5.6) | 15.4 | 176 | 0.001 | 0.60 | 0.001 |
Spiritual | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.7 (0.5) | 0.4 | | ns | 0.12 | ns |
General facet on health & QOL | 8.3 (1.9) | 8.5 (1.4) | 2.3 | 178 | 0.02 | 0.57 | 0.001 |
The patients rated themselves as having higher scores than the caregivers rated them, for the following domains: physical health, psychological health and independence (P < 0.001). However, the patients' own ratings and caregiver impression scores were highly significantly correlated (Kendall's tau mostly over 0.45, P < 0.001), except for the spiritual domain (P > 0.05). Furthermore, there was highly significant internal consistency between the ratings of the patients and the impression of the caregivers (intra – class correlation = 0.96; 95% C.I. = 0.95 – 0.97).
Predictors of patients' and caregivers' QOL (Table 9)
Table 9
Predictors of QOL of patients and caregivers: dependent variables: general facet of patients and carers in multiple regression analysis
General facet on health & QOL for pts with breast, cervical & ovarian cancer | General facet caregiver impression of pt | 42.7 | 53.6 | 0.54 | 8.0 | 0.000 |
| Pt currently feels ill | 9.1 | | 0.30 | 4.9 | 0.000 |
| Duration of illness | 1.8 | | 0.14 | 2.3 | 0.02 |
General facet on health & QOL for caregivers of pts with breast, cervical & ovarian cancer | Caregiver currently feels ill | 29.2 | 56.1 | 0.41 | 6.8 | 0.000 |
| General facet carer impression of pt | 11.9 | | 0.24 | 4.1 | 0.000 |
| Caregiver relationship to pt | 5.6 | | 0.16 | 2.6 | 0.01 |
| Caregiver's age | 3.5 | | -0.27 | -4.3 | 0.000 |
| Pt's age | 2.7 | | -0.15 | -2.6 | 0.01 |
| Caregiver gender | 1.9 | | -0.17 | -2.7 | 0.007 |
| Pt on radiotherapy | 1.3 | | -0.12 | -2.1 | 0.04 |
In multiple (step-wise) regression analysis with the general facet on health and QOL as the dependent variable, the most important predictor of the patient's QOL was the general facet derived from the family caregiver impression rating of the patient's QOL. This variable accounted for 42.7% of the variance. The other significant predictors were patient feeling currently ill (variance 9.1%) and duration of illness (variance 1.8%). In a similar analysis for the family caregiver, the caregiver impression general facet was an important predictor of the caregiver's QOL, accounting for 11.9% of the variance. The other significant predictors included caregiver feeling currently ill (variance 29.2%), and caregiver relationship to patient (variance 5.6%).
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
AWA and JUO jointly designed the study, analyzed the data and wrote up the manuscript. AWA trained and supervised the research assistant in Sudan. AG helped in the analysis and write-up of the manuscript. AOK and HMH supervised the interviews, ensured correct diagnosis and other clinical data, and critically reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content. AJ played an invaluable role in data analysis and interpretation of data. All authors read and approved the manuscript