BackgroundPredictions of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) outcomes could support realistic recovery expectations after breast cancer (BC) surgery. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models for HRQoL outcomes after BC surgery.MethodsWe used three datasets of BC patients from Berlin, Germany; Ljubljana, Slovenia; and Rotterdam; Netherlands. We included non-metastasised patients who were surgically treated for an initial diagnosis of BC and completed pre- and postoperative validated questionnaires. We used linear mixed models to analyse 15 domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 over a two-year horizon. Baseline domain score (measured pre-operatively), age, BMI, smoking, TN stage, receptor status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, axillary surgery and surgery type (breast-conserving, mastectomy, and immediate implant-based reconstruction) were included as predictors. Predictive performance at validation was assessed by the proportion of variance explained (marginal R2; mR2).ResultsWe included N = 795 patients from Germany for development and N = 623 from Slovenia and N = 417 from Netherlands for validation. The largest proportion of variance was explained by the prediction models for sexual functioning (SF, mR2 35%), physical functioning (PF, mR2 29%), body image (BI, mR2 26%), and cognitive functioning (CF, mR2 25%). The models captured meaningfully different trends over time for different outcomes and surgery types. The predictive performance of the models was largely driven by the baseline domain score. Performance was reasonable at external validation, with r2 values of 19–33% for PF, 10–17% for CF, 15–18% for BI, and 22–28% for SF, although some other outcomes (e.g. breast symptoms and role functioning) showed miscalibration, indicating a need for recalibration.ConclusionHRQoL after breast cancer surgery can be predicted using simple models with baseline domain scores and surgery type, demonstrating a new opportunity for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in personalized care.

Background: The Dutch multidisciplinary sciatica guideline recommends that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and the patient together decide on surgical or prolonged conservative treatment (shared decision making [SDM]). Despite this recommendation, SDM is not yet integrated in sciatica care. Existing literature concerning barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation mainly focuses on one discipline only, whereas multidisciplinary care may involve other barriers and facilitators, or make these more complex for both professionals and patients. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by patients and professionals for SDM implementation in multidisciplinary sciatica care.Methods: We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons) and three focus groups among patients (six to eight per group). The interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were classified according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The software package Atlas.ti 7.0 was used for analysis.Results: Professionals reported 53 barriers and 5 facilitators, and patients 35 barriers and 18 facilitators for SDM in sciatica care. Professionals perceived most barriers at the level of the organizational context, and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Patients reported most barriers and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Several barriers and facilitators correspond with barriers and facilitators found in the literature (e.g., lack of time, motivation) but also new barriers and facilitators were identified. Many of these new barriers mentioned by both professionals and patients were related to the multidisciplinary setting, such as lack of visibility, lack of trust in expertise of other disciplines, and lack of communication between disciplines.Conclusions: This study identified barriers and facilitators for SDM in the multidisciplinary sciatica setting, by both professionals and patients. It is clear that more barriers than facilitators are perceived for implementation of SDM in sciatica care. Newly identified barriers and facilitators are related to the multidisciplinary care setting. Therefore, an effective implementation strategy of SDM in a multidisciplinary setting such as in sciatica care should focus on these barriers and facilitators.

Purpose of this study was to assess whether living (LD) and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplant recipients differ in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue and societal participation, depending on time since transplantation and after adjustment for clinical and demographic variables. A questionnaire study was performed among 309 LD and 226 DD recipients (response rate 74% and 61%) transplanted between 1997 and 2009. After adjustment for age, sex, and education, LD recipients transplanted less than or equal to five yr ago experienced better HRQoL than DD recipients on the domains' role limitations due to physical problems, general health perception, and on the physical component summary score (all p < 0.05) and a better societal participation (all subscales, p < 0.05). No differences were found in the mental health domains. The LD recipients also had better renal clearance than DD recipients (62.1 vs. 55.9 mL/min, p = 0.01). After additional adjustment for renal clearance, the differences in HRQoL and societal participation between LD and DD recipients remained. No differences were found in recipients transplanted more than five yr ago. We conclude that LD recipients on average have better HRQoL and societal participation than DD recipients, in the first years after transplantation.

Health related quality of life (HRQoL) of living kidney donors on average is good, but some donors experience a low HRQoL after donation. This study assessed the prevalence of reduced HRQoL and explored associations with pre- and post-donation variables. 316 donors (response rate 74%) who donated a kidney between 1997 and 2009 filled in a questionnaire. HRQoL was measured using the Short-Form 36; fatigue using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; societal participation using the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation- Participation. Donors on average had better HRQoL than the general population. However, 12% had a reduced physical (PCS) and 18% a reduced mental (MCS) HRQoL. Donors with reduced HRQoL reported greater fatigue (P < 0.01), lower societal participation (P < 0.01) and showed a trend towards statistical significance in experiencing more donor-recipient relationship changes (P = 0.07). Prior to donation, donors with reduced PCS had a higher BMI (P < 0.05) and more often smoked (P < 0.05). Donors with reduced MCS had higher expectations (P < 0.05). Reduced HRQoL is associated with higher BMI, smoking and higher expectations prior to donation. These results may be used to develop a screening instrument to select donors at high risk for reduced HRQoL.

Background: Limited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced. Methods. We conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts. Results: Most deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donors health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p=0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced. Conclusion: Expected relationship changes and concerns about the donors health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group.