Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Mar 27:8:80.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-80.

Self evaluation of communication experiences after laryngeal cancer - a longitudinal questionnaire study in patients with laryngeal cancer

Affiliations

Self evaluation of communication experiences after laryngeal cancer - a longitudinal questionnaire study in patients with laryngeal cancer

Mia Johansson et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate the sensitivity to change of the Swedish Self Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer questionnaire (the S-SECEL), addressing communication dysfunction in patients treated for laryngeal cancer. Previous studies have highlighted the need for more specific questionnaires for this purpose.

Methods: 100 patients with Tis-T4 laryngeal cancer were included prior to treatment onset. Patients answered four questionnaires at six occasions during one year; the S-SECEL, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) supplemented by the Head and Neck cancer module (QLQ-H&N35) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale. In addition, performance status was assessed. Differences within groups were tested with the Wilcoxon paired signed ranks test and between-group analyses were carried out using the Mann-Whitney U test. Magnitude of group differences was analyzed by means of effect sizes.

Results: The S-SECEL was well accepted with a response rate of 76%. Communication dysfunction increased at 1 month, followed by a continuous decrease throughout the year. Changes were statistically significant at most measurement, demonstrating the sensitivity of the S-SECEL to changes in communication over time. The S-SECEL and the EORTC QLQ-C30 with the QLQ-H&N35 demonstrated similar results; however the S-SECEL was more sensitive regarding communication dysfunction. The largest changes were found in the most diagnose specific items concerning voice and speech.

Conclusion: The S-SECEL was investigated in the largest Scandinavian longitudinal study concerning health-related quality of life (HRQL) in laryngeal cancer patients. The questionnaire was responsive to change and showed convergent results when compared to established HRQL questionnaires. Our findings also indicate that the S-SECEL could be a more suitable instrument than the EORTC QLQ-C30 with QLQ-H&N35 when measuring communication experiences in patients with laryngeal cancer; it is more sensitive, shorter and can be used on an individual basis. As a routine screening instrument the S-SECEL could be a valuable tool for identifying patients at risk for psychosocial problems and to help plan rehabilitation. It is therefore recommended for clinical use in evaluation of communication dysfunction for all patients with laryngeal cancer irrespective of treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean S-SECEL total and subscale scores. Shows the mean values over time during the study year for S-SECEL total score and subscales. All patients who answered the questionnaires at each measurement point were included in the figure, while the p-values refer to Wilcoxon signed rank test in patients with both baseline and follow-up assessments. S-SECEL = Swedish Self Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer. env = environmental subscale, gen = general subscale, att = attitudinal subscale, tot = total score.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Changes (effects sizes) in S-SECEL and HAD. Changes (effects sizes) in S-SECEL and HAD between (a) baseline and 1 month follow-up and (b) baseline and 12 month follow-up; neg = negative change, i.e. increased dysfunction and anxiety/depression.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Atesci FC, Baltalarli B, Oguzhanoglu NK, Karadag F, Ozdel O, Karagoz N. Psychiatric morbidity among cancer patients and awareness of illness. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:161–167. doi: 10.1007/s00520-003-0585-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grassi L, Gritti P, Rigatelli M, Gala C. Psychosocial problems secondary to cancer: an Italian multicentre survey of consultation-liaison psychiatry in oncology. Italian Consultation-Liaison Group. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:579–585. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00285-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keller M, Sommerfeldt S, Fischer C, Knight L, Riesbeck M, Lowe B, Herfarth C, Lehnert T. Recognition of distress and psychiatric morbidity in cancer patients: a multi-method approach. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1243–1249. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdh318. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bjordal K, Kaasa S, Mastekaasa A. Quality of life in patients treated for head and neck cancer: A follow-up study 7 to 11 years after radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28:847–856. - PubMed
    1. Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Psychological distress in head and neck cancer patients 7-11 years after curative treatment. Br J Cancer. 1995;71:592–597. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types