Indian Journal of Palliative Care
Open access journal 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users online: 201  
     Home | About | Feedback | Login 
  Current Issue Back Issues Editorial Board Authors and Reviewers How to Subscribe Advertise with us Contact Us Analgesic Prescription  
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (396 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2147    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded113    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 243-244

Cancer rehabilitation evaluation system questionnaire: a disease-specific and treatment-specific measure of rehabilitation needs and self-reported quality of life


1 Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana Ambala, Haryana, India
2 Department of Psychiatry, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore, India
3 Srinivas College of Physiotherapy and Research Centre, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, India

Date of Web Publication8-Aug-2014

Correspondence Address:
Senthil P Kumar
Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana Ambala, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-1075.138403

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Kumar SP, D'Souza M, Sisodia V, Kumar K V. Cancer rehabilitation evaluation system questionnaire: a disease-specific and treatment-specific measure of rehabilitation needs and self-reported quality of life. Indian J Palliat Care 2014;20:243-4

How to cite this URL:
Kumar SP, D'Souza M, Sisodia V, Kumar K V. Cancer rehabilitation evaluation system questionnaire: a disease-specific and treatment-specific measure of rehabilitation needs and self-reported quality of life. Indian J Palliat Care [serial online] 2014 [cited 2021 Apr 14];20:243-4. Available from: https://www.jpalliativecare.com/text.asp?2014/20/3/243/138403


Sir,

I would like to appreciate the leadership role played by the Indian Journal of Palliative Care in establishing evidence for evaluation tools in terms of their psychometric properties for use in palliative and end-of-life care settings in developing countries. [1] This letter to editor introduces readers of IJPC to Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES), a self-reported questionnaire for assessment of rehabilitation needs and quality of life in cancer survivors.

CARES is the first of its kind tool, for evaluating quality of life from disease-specific and treatment-specific perspectives, among cancer survivors. Maintaining "quality of life" for a cancer patient is analogous to caring for the "whole" patient which should include integration of multispecialty services, on-going patient education, attention to supportive care, and efforts to achieve organ preservation. [2] Patients' feelings, psychological and functional status, and quality of life have often been regarded as unmeasurable subjective entities that cannot be scientifically studied. [3]

Keeping the above-mentioned challenges in mind, Schag and Heinrich [4] developed a cancer-specific rehabilitation and treatment planning questionnaire, CARES (CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System). CARES is a comprehensive, reliable, valid, cost-efficient and pertinent to patients' quality of life. The CARES was adapted for research settings and a computer-based scoring and professional reporting system was available to clinicians with access to IBM compatible personal computers.

Evidence for CARES was established by Ganz et al. [5] who reviewed studies on CARES, and presented data to demonstrate that the CARES was a generic measure of health-related quality of life, suitable for use in cancer. The CARES performed well across doifferent cancer sites and phases of the disease. CARES was also responsive to changes in health-related quality of life over time. Considering the practical difficulties in application of CARES, a shorter version of the instrument was developed as CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-short form (CARES-SF).

Schag et al. [6] described the development and psychometric properties of the CARES-SF and their findings demonstrated that the CARES-SF was highly related to the CARES, had excellent test-retest reliability, concurrent validity with related measures, and acceptable internal consistency of summary scales.

Subsequently, te Velde et al. [7] investigated the validity and reliability of the CARES-SF on 485 cancer patients who completed the CARES-SF before treatment (T1), 1 month later (T2), and 3 months following T2 (T3), with a sub-sample of patients completing the CARES-SF a fourth time (T4) 1 week following T3, for purposes of test-retest reliability estimation. Internal consistency was high for four of six multi-item scales; test-retest reliability for the six scales were also high; selective scales distinguished clearly between patients differing in disease stage, performance status, treatment modality and tumor response; and they were also responsive to changes in health status over time.

Hjermstad et al. [8] studied the rehabilitation needs after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) in 130 cancer patients treated with HDC and allogeneic (SCT) or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The SCT group had better psychosocial subscale scores at the 6 and 12-month assessments, as well as better satisfaction on the marital subscale 6 months post-transplant.

The CARES and CARES-SF appeared to be two promising evaluation tools that could be used in palliative care settings, to measure disease-specific and care-specific quality of life in cancer survivors, and this poses a huge opportunity for palliative care clinicians and researchers in developing countries to implement and establish further evidence respectively.

With only few studies describing application of CARES and/or CARES-SF in oncology settings, can palliative care physicians and rehabilitation professionals co-operate in evaluating the rehabilitation needs and quality of life in cancer survivors in developing countries using either CARES or CARES-SF?

 
  References Top

1.Kumar SP, Sisodia V. Evidence-based palliative care: Role of palliative care journals. Indian J Palliat Care 2013;19:76.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Frei E 3 rd , Kass F, Weeks J. Quality of life in cancer patients: Clinical considerations and perspectives. Oncology (Williston Park) 1990;4:204-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Strain JJ. The evolution of quality of life evaluations in cancer therapy. Oncology (Williston Park) 1990;4:22-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Schag CA, Heinrich RL. Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology (Williston Park) 1990;4:135-8, discussion 147.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Ganz PA, Schag CA, Lee JJ, Sim MS. The CARES: A generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1992;1:19-29.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Schag CA, Ganz PA, Heinrich RL. CAncer rehabilitation evaluation system--short form (CARES-SF). A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument. Cancer 1991;68:1406-13.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.te Velde A, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. Feasibility, psychometric performance, and stability across modes of administration of the CARES-SF. Ann Oncol 1996;7:381-90.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Hjermstad MJ, Evensen SA, Kvaløy SO, Loge JH, Fayers PM, Kaasa S. The CARES-SF used for prospective assessment of health-related quality of life after stem cell transplantation. Psychooncology 2003;12:803-13.  Back to cited text no. 8
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Online since 1st October '05
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow