CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 366Cancer survivorship and careChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The quality of life of cancer patients: A review of the literature

de Haes, Johanna C.J.M., van Knippenberg, Ferdinand C.E.·1985·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90335-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In recent years the necessity of including quality of life (QL) measurement in cancer research has been stressed. In this paper an overview is given of the results of studies into the QL of cancer patients. From descriptive studies it appears that the quality of certain domains of life is impaired by cancer treatment. Results from studies in which two or more groups of cancer patients are being compared are not consistent. The expectation that the QL of patients is impaired more negatively by certain treatment modalities is confirmed in some studies but not in several others. Even the assumption that the QL of cancer patients is worse than the QL of the normal population is not substantiated. In this paper explanations for these unexpected results are forwarded. First, the definition and operationalization of the concept QL differs from one study to another. QL may either refer to an overall evaluation or to the evaluation of certain domains of life, and, either to the subjective experience of the patient or the evaluation of the situation by others. Secondly, other methodological difficulties especially with respect to reliability, validity and design are described. Finally, it is suggested that psychological mechanisms may account for the absence of differences between cancer patients and others and may therefore, on theoretical grounds, explain the established inconsistencies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90335-1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In general, results from comparative studies are meager and do not support the assumption that cancer or cancer treatment lead to a significantly lower quality of life.

    “in general the results from comparative studies are meager and do not support the assumption that cancer or cancer treatment lead to a significantly lower quality of life”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as de Haes and van Knippenberg, 1985

  • Even significant illness and disability, such as cancer, renal failure, and paralysis, have been shown to have a surprisingly small intrinsic effect on levels of wellbeing as such.

    “Indeed, even significant illness and disability, such as cancer, renal failure, and paralysis, have been shown to have a surprisingly small intrinsic effect on levels of wellbeing as such.”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as de Haes and van Knippenberg, 1985

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Haes, J. C. J. M., & van Knippenberg, F. C. E.
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1985-01
Volume
20
Issue
8
Pages
809-817
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0277-9536(85)90335-1
OpenAlex
W2078047818
Cited by
366
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
quality of life, cancer patients, cancer treatment side effects, quality of life assessment, definition of quality of life, reliability and validity, psychological mechanisms
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review