Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ=C30 (+ 3).

Hjermstad, M J, Fayers, P M, Bjordal, K, Kaasa, S·1998·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To obtain reference data on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for the functional and symptom scales and single items of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30 [+ 3]) in a representative sample of the Norwegian general population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 3,000 people from the Norwegian population, aged 18 to 93 years, who represent geographic diversity, took part in this postal survey. The EORTC QLQ-C30 (+ 3) and a questionnaire about demographic data and health were sent by mail. A new questionnaire package was sent as a reminder after 3 weeks. RESULTS: The survey yielded a high response rate with 1,965 of 2,892 eligible persons responding (68%). There was a low amount of missing data (1.8%). Internal consistency was highly satisfactory and yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients greater than 0.70 for all but two functional scales and one symptom scale. The sensitivity of the questionnaire was shown by the excellent discrimination between age and sex groups. Clinical validity was shown by the distinct differences according to age and sociodemographic characteristics. Women reported lower functional status and global quality of life (mean scale scores from 71.7 to 91.0) than men (mean scale scores from 75.4 to 94.4), and also more symptoms and problems. This was remarkably consistent across age groups, as was a decline in functional status with an increase in age. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that presented reference data from the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+ 3) in a sample from a general population and seems to provide valid measures of HRQOL within different age groups. The results may serve as a guideline for clinicians when interpreting HRQOL in their own groups of patients, and contributes to a better understanding of the significance of mean scores and their clinical relevance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1998.16.3.1188

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1998-03
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
1188-1196
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2223205229
Cited by
368
References
3
FWCI
7.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ=C30 (+ 3). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.3.1188
The paper
Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ=C30 (+ 3). Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.3.1188

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.