Activities of Daily Living in Survivors of Childhood Brain Tumor

Catherine Demers; Isabelle Gélinas; Anne-Sophie Carret

doi:10.5014/ajot.2016.014993

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. This cross-sectional, descriptive study evaluated the performance in activities of daily living (ADLs) of youth and young adult survivors of childhood brain tumor (BT) and explored associations with health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHOD. Thirty-six participants were examined using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills to evaluate their quality of ADL task performance and the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF–12) to evaluate HRQoL.

RESULTS. Participants had significantly lower performance in ADLs compared with age norms (p < .05), and their functional level was positively associated with the SF–12 Physical (r ² = .5) and Mental (r ² = .3) scales.

CONCLUSION. Participants had significant limitations in both motor and process skills, which affected their performance in ADLs. Study results emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up and rehabilitation services aimed at improving the functional level and HRQoL of BT survivors.

The term cancer survivor originally designated a family member who lost a loved one to cancer (Leigh, 1996). With growing knowledge about cancer and more successful treatments, a long-term cancer survivor is now defined as a person who lives for 5 yr or more after the diagnosis of cancer (Mols, Vingerhoets, Coebergh, & van de Poll-Franse, 2005). The increased survival rate of approximately 70% of children with brain tumors (BTs) in North America (Canadian Cancer Society [CCS], 2011) is a major medical achievement. However, for many survivors, overcoming cancer is just the first of many hurdles to be surmounted after diagnosis (Turner, Rey-Casserly, Liptak, & Chordas, 2009).

Despite the advances in research and technology, patients with BT and survivors experience many negative physical, psychosocial, and neuropsychological late effects (Boman, Hovén, Anclair, Lannering, & Gustafsson, 2009). A late effect is a condition that appears after the acute phase of an earlier condition; it can be caused either directly, by the condition, or indirectly, by the treatment. Late effects often leave patients unnecessarily disabled or, at the very least, able to function only at a suboptimal level (Hewitt, Greenfield, & Stovall, 2005). The percentage of survivors of childhood BT with a medium, high, or severe burden of adverse health outcomes is estimated at more than 80% (Geenen et al., 2007). Furthermore, 60% have at least one impairment (Aarsen et al., 2006; Macedoni-Luksic, Jereb, & Todorovski, 2003), including visual, motor, cognitive, or neurological impairments; endocrine complications; and abnormalities found on computed tomography scans.

Ness et al. (2010) reported that survivors of childhood BT have decreased employment, less education beyond high school, and less independent living. However, because few researchers have addressed the functional outcome of patients with BT from a rehabilitation perspective (Kunin-Batson et al., 2011; Ness et al., 2005, 2010), the impacts of late effects on function and activities of daily living (ADLs) are poorly documented and quantified. ADLs are defined as essential activities for self-care, such as washing and feeding, and for independent living, such as home management and meal preparation (Lawton, 1987). Research that objectively measures ADL performance in survivors of childhood cancer is rare in the literature (Parks, Rasch, Mansky, & Oakley, 2009). In addition, little research has been conducted to examine how survivors of childhood BT cope with everyday living, and descriptions of their ADL performance are not available.

As life expectancy increases for patients with cancer, there is growing recognition that patient-reported outcome measures, including measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), convey important information to determine the overall burden of cancer (Lipscomb, Gotay, & Snyder, 2007). HRQoL is a multidimensional construct that assesses the impact of a disease and its treatment in terms of physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and overall well-being (Berra et al., 2007; World Health Organization, 1996). It is best evaluated with self-reported instruments (International Society for Quality of Life Research, 2015), because each person is the ultimate judge of his or her own health and treatment outcome. Survivors of childhood BT have one of the lowest HRQoL among survivors of childhood cancer as a result of a complex array of late effects (McDougall & Tsonis, 2009; Zeltzer et al., 2009). Past studies have suggested that associations exist among physical performance, executive function, and HRQoL outcomes in adult survivors of childhood cancer (Ness et al., 2008) but not specifically in survivors of childhood BT. Therefore, research is needed to understand the relationship between ADL performance and HRQoL in this population.

This study addresses ADL performance of youth and young adult survivors of childhood BT (ages 16–29 yr) and its association with HRQoL because these factors reflect the everyday lives of survivors beyond the acute diagnosis and treatment phases. The specific aims were to (1) estimate the extent to which youth and young adult survivors of childhood BT achieved a level of ADL performance that was comparable to that of their peers and (2) assess the association between observed limitations in motor and process skills and HRQoL.

Method

Participants

A cross-sectional study was conducted with a convenience sample of survivors of childhood BT recruited from a long-term follow-up clinic at Sainte-Justine University Hospital Centre (UHC) in Montreal. Participants had to meet the following inclusion criteria: treatment between 1987 and 2007 inclusively at CHU and age ≤21 yr during that period, age ≥16 yr at the time of the study, BT as the first cancer occurrence, at least 3 yr off treatment with no recurrence or progression, and at least 5 yr since diagnosis. Excluded from participation were people who had a spinal cord tumor, were treated by surgery only, had a preexisting comorbid condition not related to the cancer, and had treatments that might have affected their functional outcome.

Sample size calculations were based on the main outcome measure, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS; Fisher, 2012). For the effect size, a significant change for motor or process skill measures was at least 0.3 logit (Magalhaes, Hamonet, de Sousa, Matos, & da Costa, 1996; Silverstein, Fisher, Kilgore, Harley, & Harvey, 1992). For a level of significance of ɖ (one-tailed) = .05, β = .20, and the standard error of the sample = 0.9, sample sizes of 36 for motor skills and 26 for process skills were required. Therefore, 36 participants were recruited. The norms used were healthy people of the same age (16–29 yr) from the AMPS standardization sample (Fisher & Merritt, 2012). The study protocol was approved by the UHC research ethics board. Written informed consent was obtained from participants ages ≥18 yr and from parents of participants ages <18 yr.

Data Collection

Every month, a list of survivors of childhood BT attending their annual appointment at the long-term follow-up clinic at UHC was provided by the research nurse. The list of transferred patients was also consulted on a regular basis. The main researcher (Catherine Demers) contacted patients who met the eligibility criteria by telephone. Patients who agreed to participate were asked to give their written, informed consent. Medical charts were reviewed and clinical data were abstracted to obtain relevant material on participants’ medical condition, treatment information, and past history.

Participants completed the assessments during a follow-up visit or at another convenient time. For participants living in the Montreal area, the possibility of conducting the assessments at home was also proposed for the patient’s convenience. During the appointment, the participants were first asked to fill out two questionnaires, one to assess their HRQoL and another to document their current occupation, level of education, and living situation. The functional assessment was administered to study participants by the main researcher, who is a calibrated AMPS rater. The evaluation took, on average, 1–2 hr to complete, and all participants were assessed over a 10-mo period (from February to December 2013).

Measures

The quality of ADL task performance was evaluated by a standardized objective measure, the AMPS. The AMPS assesses 16 motor and 20 process skills using a 4-point ordinal scale (1 = unacceptable performance, 2 = ineffective, 3 = questionable, 4 = competent) according to explicit, specific criteria. ADL motor skills are observable actions used to move oneself and task objects (e.g., reaches, bends, calibrates), and ADL process skills are observable actions used to organize and adapt task actions to prevent or overcome problems (e.g., initiates, chooses, and organizes). The AMPS assessment is designed to measure observable goal-directed skills related to enacting an ADL task performance, not to test specific physical or cognitive impairments. During AMPS administration, the rater observes a participant performing two culturally relevant ADL tasks, such as preparing a sandwich and making a bed. Studies have supported the reliability and validity of the AMPS across age groups and gender (Hayase & Thimmaiah, 2004; Merritt & Fisher, 2003) and its sensitivity as an outcome measure (Cooke, Fisher, Mayberry, & Oakley, 2000; Graff et al., 2006; Kottorp, Bernspång, & Fisher, 2003).

HRQoL was evaluated by having each participant complete the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF–12; Ware, Kosinski, & Keller, 1996). The SF–12 is a generic health profile that produces two overall summary scores, the physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS). The PCS is based on the domains of Physical Functioning, Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems, Bodily Pain, and General Health Perception, and the MCS is based on the domains of Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems, and Mental Health (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). The SF–12 is widely used with numerous health conditions and has previously been used with survivors of childhood cancer (Bober et al., 2013; O’Leary, Diller, & Recklitis, 2007).

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the eligible participants (Table 1). The AMPS computer-scoring software was used to generate ADL motor and process skill scores for each study participant. Many-faceted Rasch analysis was then used to convert the raw, ordinal scores to logits, which are linear measures expressed as equal-interval, log odds probabilities. Means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ADL motor and process skill scores were calculated and expressed as logits (Table 2). Differences in mean ADL motor and process skill scores between participants and healthy norms were determined using a one-sample t test (p < .05). Raw scores from the SF–12 were converted to t scores (range = 0–100), and differences in mean MCS and PCS scores between participants and the general population were determined using a one-sample t test (p < .05; Table 3).

Table 1.

Participant Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics

Characteristic	M (SD) or n (%)
Age at evaluation	21.0 (3.3)
Gender
Male	14 (38.9)
Female	22 (61.1)
Level of education (highest diploma)
Elementary school	13 (36.1)
High school	9 (25.0)
General and vocational college^a or professional school	11 (30.6)
University	3 (8.3)
Occupation
Studying or working full-time	20 (55.6)
Special program studies, sheltered or part-time employment	13 (36.1)
Unemployed	3 (8.3)
Independence status
Independent	6 (16.7)
Living with family or other supervision	30 (83.3)
Time since end of treatment, yr	10.1 (3.8)
Age at diagnosis, yr	8.9 (5.1)
Tumor type
Medulloblastoma or PNET	23 (63.9)
Astrocytoma or glioma	5 (13.9)
Other	8 (22.2)
Tumor location
Posterior fossa	19 (52.8)
Supratentorial or parasellar	17 (47.2)
Type of treatment
No radiation	1 (2.8)
Cranial radiation	7 (19.4)
Cranial and spinal radiation	28 (77.8)
Radiation dose
<55 Gy	20 (55.6)
≥55 Gy	16 (44.4)
Chronic health conditions^b
Endocrine	30 (83.3)
Musculoskeletal	17 (47.2)
Neurologic or neurosensory	27 (75.0)
Rehabilitation services^b
Occupational therapy	24 (66.7)
Physiotherapy	27 (75.0)
Psychology or neuropsychology	24 (66.7)
Speech therapy	4 (11.1)

Note. N = 36. PNET = primitive neuroectodermal tumor.

^aPreuniversity college in Quebec province education system.

^bParticipants could have more than one condition or type of service.

View Large

Table 1.

Participant Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics

Characteristic	M (SD) or n (%)
Age at evaluation	21.0 (3.3)
Gender
Male	14 (38.9)
Female	22 (61.1)
Level of education (highest diploma)
Elementary school	13 (36.1)
High school	9 (25.0)
General and vocational college^a or professional school	11 (30.6)
University	3 (8.3)
Occupation
Studying or working full-time	20 (55.6)
Special program studies, sheltered or part-time employment	13 (36.1)
Unemployed	3 (8.3)
Independence status
Independent	6 (16.7)
Living with family or other supervision	30 (83.3)
Time since end of treatment, yr	10.1 (3.8)
Age at diagnosis, yr	8.9 (5.1)
Tumor type
Medulloblastoma or PNET	23 (63.9)
Astrocytoma or glioma	5 (13.9)
Other	8 (22.2)
Tumor location
Posterior fossa	19 (52.8)
Supratentorial or parasellar	17 (47.2)
Type of treatment
No radiation	1 (2.8)
Cranial radiation	7 (19.4)
Cranial and spinal radiation	28 (77.8)
Radiation dose
<55 Gy	20 (55.6)
≥55 Gy	16 (44.4)
Chronic health conditions^b
Endocrine	30 (83.3)
Musculoskeletal	17 (47.2)
Neurologic or neurosensory	27 (75.0)
Rehabilitation services^b
Occupational therapy	24 (66.7)
Physiotherapy	27 (75.0)
Psychology or neuropsychology	24 (66.7)
Speech therapy	4 (11.1)

Note. N = 36. PNET = primitive neuroectodermal tumor.

^aPreuniversity college in Quebec province education system.

^bParticipants could have more than one condition or type of service.

Table 2.

Motor and Process Skill Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p <
AMPS Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p <
Motor skills, logits	1.77 (0.77)	[1.52, 2.02]	2.95 (0.53)	.05
Process skills, logits	1.29 (0.64)	[1.08, 1.49]	2.01 (0.43)	.05

Note. AMPS = Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

View Large

Table 2.

Motor and Process Skill Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p <
AMPS Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p <
Motor skills, logits	1.77 (0.77)	[1.52, 2.02]	2.95 (0.53)	.05
Process skills, logits	1.29 (0.64)	[1.08, 1.49]	2.01 (0.43)	.05

Note. AMPS = Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

Table 3.

SF–12 MCS and PCS Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p
SF–12 Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p
MCS	50.27 (7.55)	[37.89, 63.01]	50 (10)	.465
PCS	48.16 (9.33)	[45.11, 51.21]	50 (10)	.106

Note. M = mean; MCS = mental component summary; PCS = physical component summary; SD = standard deviation; SF–12 = Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Raw scores from the SF–12 were converted to t scores for this analysis.

View Large

Table 3.

SF–12 MCS and PCS Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p
SF–12 Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p
MCS	50.27 (7.55)	[37.89, 63.01]	50 (10)	.465
PCS	48.16 (9.33)	[45.11, 51.21]	50 (10)	.106

Note. M = mean; MCS = mental component summary; PCS = physical component summary; SD = standard deviation; SF–12 = Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Raw scores from the SF–12 were converted to t scores for this analysis.

Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the relationship between ADL motor and process skill scores and MCS and PCS scores for HRQoL. Simple linear regressions were first performed to evaluate the association between each SF–12 summary score and each AMPS ADL performance skill score. The potential for confounding for age, gender, time since treatment, age at diagnosis, tumor type and location, treatment type, radiation dose, and chronic health condition was then tested using simple linear regression. Each potential confounding variable was assessed for its relationship with the outcome (HRQoL) and with each of the predictor variables (motor and process skills). Confounding variables found to have a significant effect on both the outcome and one of the predictor variables were added to the model. Statistical significance was set at the 5% level. Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 20; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results

Participant Characteristics

The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of our study participants (see Table 1) differed from CCS (2008, 2011) statistics. According to the CCS (2008), the incidence of BT is approximately 20% higher in boys than in girls; however, only 39% of our participants were boys. In addition, the CCS (2011) reported that in the 16- to 29-yr age group 44% of BTs are astrocytomas and 20% are intracranial or intraspinal; however, in our study they accounted for 14% and 64%, respectively.

Activities of Daily Living and Health-Related Quality of Life

Participants’ motor and process skill scores were significantly lower than the norms in the 16- to 29-yr age group (p < .05; see Table 2). Participants’ MCS and PCS scores indicated that their mental and physical health fall within the average of the general population, with means of 50.27 and 48.16, respectively (see Table 3). The associations between each ADL performance skill (motor and process) score and each HRQoL summary score (MCS and PCS) are shown in Figure 1. For the multiple linear regression models, after adjusting for gender and chronic health conditions, the level of performance in ADL skills (motor and process) was significantly associated with overall physical health (r² = .5), and after adjusting for time since treatment and chronic health conditions, with mental health (r² = .3).

Figure 1.

Associations between AMPS ADL motor and process skills scores and SF–12 MCS and PCS scores. (A) ADL motor skills vs. PCS scores; (B) ADL motor skills vs. MCS scores; (C) ADL process skills vs. PCS scores; (D) ADL process skills vs. MCS scores. Higher motor and process skill scores represent higher performance; higher MCS and PCS scores represent higher health-related quality of life.

Note. ADLs = activities of daily living; AMPS = Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; MCS = mental component summary; PCS = physical component summary; SF–12 = Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

Full Size | Slide (.ppt)

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine ADL functioning and HRQoL among youth and young adult survivors of childhood BT. To our knowledge, this study is the first to document specific deficits in ADLs using an objective, standardized, and performance-based measure. Our study demonstrated that ADL functioning of survivors of childhood BT is significantly lower than that of age norms but that HRQoL is similar to the general population. Furthermore, we showed that the functional outcome is positively associated with survivors’ self-reported physical and mental health.

Over the past 2 decades, the cancer literature has reported variable results regarding functional abilities of long-term survivors of childhood BT (Aarsen et al., 2006; Armstrong et al., 2009; Bhat et al., 2005; Boman et al., 2009; Fouladi et al., 2005). The selection of functional assessment tools for patients with cancer has been particularly problematic, especially because many questionnaires completed by these patients were not designed specifically to elicit information about function. Because we used an objective, standardized, and performance-based measure in this study, we were able to provide more accurate, real-life information on the functional status of survivors of childhood BT. The findings from this study highlight that the late effects experienced by survivors of childhood BT affect their performance in their basic day-to-day life and activities, such as cooking and cleaning, and in their capacity to live independently.

Young survivors of childhood BT face additional challenges as they adapt to the roles, responsibilities, and challenges of adulthood. Late effects may influence the completion of developmental tasks, such as establishing independence from parents, starting a career, developing intimate relationships, and planning a family (Zebrack & Walsh-Burke, 2004). For example, in our study, only a few participants lived independently. In addition, only about half of the participants who had finished school had a full-time job. Results of this study identify survivors of childhood BT as a group who are still in need of services to optimize their health and functional outcome many years after the completion of treatment.

Overall, the results indicate that survivors of childhood BT report good HRQoL. These findings are consistent with those of another study concluding that survivors of childhood BT did not differ from population norms for the majority of HRQoL domains (Aukema, Schouten-van Meeteren, Last, Maurice-Stam, & Grootenhuis, 2013). Reports by these survivors of similar HRQoL compared with population norms could be explained by the response shift phenomenon (Sprangers & Schwartz, 1999); that is, experiencing childhood cancer inoculates survivors against other negative life experiences and provides them with feelings of life satisfaction and overall psychological well-being (Zeltzer et al., 2008). Previous studies have raised the possibility that some survivors not only adapt to the negative impact of cancer but also thrive as a result, therefore reporting a better quality of life after cancer (Zebrack, 2000). However, other studies have reported no differences in psychological outcomes between survivors of childhood cancer and norms, a result that may be influenced by response bias (Recklitis et al., 2006). Another possible explanation is the limitation of normative data; therefore, using a control group such as siblings of long-term survivors may provide a more accurate assessment of HRQoL in survivors of childhood BT (Zeltzer et al., 2009).

Our results showed a statistically significant association between performance limitations and HRQoL. Consequently, interventions aimed at improving the performance of ADLs in survivors of childhood cancer may eventually improve HRQoL. However, the relatively weak relationship between ADL performance and HRQoL suggests that factors other than functional outcome must be taken into consideration to explain survivors’ perceived health. For example, common challenges identified by young survivors of cancer, such as social support and satisfaction with physical appearance (D’Agostino & Edelstein, 2013), were not addressed in this study.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study has potential limitations. Its cross-sectional nature provides only a snapshot of participants’ ADL performance and HRQoL; therefore, the impact of late effects over time is unknown for this sample. Moreover, the small number of study participants did not allow us to perform additional analyses between subgroups. Other limitations are the convenience sample; the absence of a proper control group; and the restriction of the data to one hospital, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

For future studies, we recommend methodological enhancement (e.g., conduct a case-control study). Rehabilitation programs to optimize both function and quality of life should be developed for adult survivors of cancer and for children currently undergoing therapy. A knowledge translation strategy should also be planned to ensure clinicians working in the area of childhood cancer are informed of the potential vulnerabilities in this population to enable them to help patients and families as much as possible.

Implications for Occupational Therapy Practice

Our findings have the following practical implications for occupational therapy practice:

Occupational therapy practitioners can use objective, performance-based measures to gain a more comprehensive understanding of performance of ADLs in survivors of childhood cancer.
Timely evaluation and intervention in occupational therapy could help survivors of childhood BT achieve optimal independence, participation, and HRQoL.
Increased awareness of the potential for functional limitations of BT survivors may increase access and utilization of occupational therapy services.

Conclusion

Our study is the first to document specific deficits in ADLs in survivors of childhood BT using an objective, standardized, and performance-based measure. The results underline the impact of childhood BTs on the functional outcome of survivors. On average, adult survivors of childhood BT have significantly lower motor and process skills than age norms but good HRQoL. Moreover, this research shows a positive association between performance of ADLs, from an objective perspective, and HRQoL, from the participant’s perspective.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Coast-to-Coast Foundation. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the CHU oncology rehabilitation team and to thank the participants for their very precious time and generosity.

References

Aarsen, F. K., Paquier, P. F., Reddingius, R. E., Streng, I. C., Arts, W. F., Evera-Preesman, M., & Catsman-Berrevoets, C. E. (2006). Functional outcome after low-grade astrocytoma treatment in childhood. Cancer, 106, 396–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21612 [Article] [PubMed]

Armstrong, G. T., Liu, Q., Yasui, Y., Huang, S., Ness, K. K., Leisenring, W., . . . Packer, R. J. (2009). Long-term outcomes among adult survivors of childhood central nervous system malignancies in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101, 946–958. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp148 [Article] [PubMed]

Aukema, E. J., Schouten-van Meeteren, A. Y., Last, B. F., Maurice-Stam, H., & Grootenhuis, M. A. (2013). Childhood brain tumor survivors at risk for impaired health-related quality of life. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 35, 603–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MPH.0b013e31829b7ec6 [Article] [PubMed]

Berra, S., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Tebé, C., Bisegger, C., Duer, W., . . . Rajmil, L.; European KIDSCREEN Group. (2007). Methods and representativeness of a European survey in children and adolescents: The KIDSCREEN study. BMC Public Health, 7, 182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-182 [Article] [PubMed]

Bhat, S. R., Goodwin, T. L., Burwinkle, T. M., Lansdale, M. F., Dahl, G. V., Huhn, S. L., . . . Fisher, P. G. (2005). Profile of daily life in children with brain tumors: An assessment of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 5493–5500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.10.190 [Article] [PubMed]

Bober, S. L., Zhou, E. S., Chen, B., Manley, P. E., Kenney, L. B., & Recklitis, C. J. (2013). Sexual function in childhood cancer survivors: A report from Project REACH. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 2084–2093. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12193 [Article] [PubMed]

Boman, K. K., Hovén, E., Anclair, M., Lannering, B., & Gustafsson, G. (2009). Health and persistent functional late effects in adult survivors of childhood CNS tumours: A population-based cohort study. European Journal of Cancer, 45, 2552–2561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.06.008 [Article] [PubMed]

Canadian Cancer Society. (2008). Canadian cancer statistics 2008. Toronto: Author.

Canadian Cancer Society. (2011). Canadian cancer statistics 2011. Toronto: Author.

Cooke, K. Z., Fisher, A. G., Mayberry, W., & Oakley, F. (2000). Differences in activities of daily living process skills of persons with and without Alzheimer’s disease. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 20, 87–104. [Article]

D’Agostino, N. M., & Edelstein, K. (2013). Psychosocial challenges and resource needs of young adult cancer survivors: Implications for program development. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 31, 585–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2013.835018 [Article] [PubMed]

Fisher, A. G. (2012). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills: Volume 1—Development, standardization, and administration manual (7th ed., rev.). Ft. Collins, CO: Three Star Press.

Fisher, A. G., & Merritt, B. K. (2012). Current standardization sample, item and task calibration values, and validity and reliability of the AMPS. In Assessment of Motor and Process Skills: Volume 1—Development, standardization, and administration manual (7th ed., rev.; pp. 15-1–5-75). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press.

Fouladi, M., Gilger, E., Kocak, M., Wallace, D., Buchanan, G., Reeves, C., . . . Mulhern, R. (2005). Intellectual and functional outcome of children 3 years old or younger who have CNS malignancies. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 7152–7160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.214 [Article] [PubMed]

Geenen, M. M., Cardous-Ubbink, M. C., Kremer, L. C., van den Bos, C., van der Pal, H. J., Heinen, R. C., . . . van Leeuwen, F. E. (2007). Medical assessment of adverse health outcomes in long-term survivors of childhood cancer. JAMA, 297, 2705–2715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.24.2705 [Article] [PubMed]

Graff, M. J., Vernooij-Dassen, M. J., Thijssen, M., Dekker, J., Hoefnagels, W. H., & Rikkert, M. G. (2006). Community-based occupational therapy for patients with dementia and their care givers: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 333, 1196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39001.688843.BE [Article] [PubMed]

Hayase, D. M. D., & Thimmaiah, D. (2004). Age-related changes in activities of daily living ability. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 51, 192–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2004.00425.x [Article]

Hewitt, M., Greenfield, S., & Stovall, E. (Eds.). (2005). From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

International Society for Quality of Life Research. (2015). What is health-related quality of life research? Retrieved from http://www.isoqol.org/about-isoqol/what-is-health-related-quality-of-life-research

Kottorp, A., Bernspång, B., & Fisher, A. G. (2003). Validity of a performance assessment of activities of daily living for people with developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 597–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00475.x [Article] [PubMed]

Kunin-Batson, A., Kadan-Lottick, N., Zhu, L., Cox, C., Bordes-Edgar, V., Srivastava, D. K., . . . Krull, K. R. (2011). Predictors of independent living status in adult survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Pediatric Blood and Cancer, 57, 1197–1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pbc.22982 [Article] [PubMed]

Lawton, M. P. (1987, October 19–21). Behavioural and social components of functional capacity. Paper presented at National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision Making, Washington, DC.

Leigh, S. A. (1996). Defining our destiny. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), A cancer survivor’s almanac: Charting the journey (pp. 261–271). Minneapolis: Chronimed Publishing.

Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: A review of recent research and policy initiatives [Review]. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57, 278–300. [Article] [PubMed]

Macedoni-Luksic, M., Jereb, B., & Todorovski, L. (2003). Long-term sequelae in children treated for brain tumors: Impairments, disability, and handicap. Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, 20, 89–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0880010390158595 [Article] [PubMed]

Magalhaes, T., Hamonet, C., de Sousa, M. J., Matos, E., & da Costa, J. P. (1996). Occupational handicap in victims of limb injuries. Medicine and Law, 15, 135–141. [PubMed]

McDougall, J., & Tsonis, M. (2009). Quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer: A systematic review of the literature (2001–2008). Supportive Care in Cancer, 17, 1231–1246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0660-0 [Article] [PubMed]

Merritt, B. K., & Fisher, A. G. (2003). Gender differences in the performance of activities of daily living. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 1872–1877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00483-0 [Article] [PubMed]

Mols, F., Vingerhoets, A. J., Coebergh, J. W., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2005). Quality of life among long-term breast cancer survivors: A systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 41, 2613–2619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.05.017 [Article] [PubMed]

Ness, K. K., Gurney, J. G., Zeltzer, L. K., Leisenring, W., Mulrooney, D. A., Nathan, P. C., . . . Mertens, A. C. (2008). The impact of limitations in physical, executive, and emotional function on health-related quality of life among adult survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 128–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.123 [Article] [PubMed]

Ness, K. K., Mertens, A. C., Hudson, M. M., Wall, M. M., Leisenring, W. M., Oeffinger, K. C., . . . Gurney, J. G. (2005). Limitations on physical performance and daily activities among long-term survivors of childhood cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine, 143, 639–647. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-9-200511010-00007 [Article] [PubMed]

Ness, K. K., Morris, E. B., Nolan, V. G., Howell, C. R., Gilchrist, L. S., Stovall, M., . . . Neglia, J. P. (2010). Physical performance limitations among adult survivors of childhood brain tumors. Cancer, 116, 3034–3044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25051 [Article] [PubMed]

O’Leary, T. E., Diller, L., & Recklitis, C. J. (2007). The effects of response bias on self-reported quality of life among childhood cancer survivors. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1211–1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9231-3 [Article] [PubMed]

Parks, R., Rasch, E. K., Mansky, P. J., & Oakley, F. (2009). Differences in activities of daily living performance between long-term pediatric sarcoma survivors and a matched comparison group on standardized testing. Pediatric Blood and Cancer, 53, 622–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pbc.22101 [Article] [PubMed]

Recklitis, C. J., Parsons, S. K., Shih, M. C., Mertens, A., Robison, L. L., & Zeltzer, L. (2006). Factor structure of the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 in adult survivors of childhood cancer: Results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Psychological Assessment, 18, 22–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.22 [Article] [PubMed]

Silverstein, B., Fisher, W. P., Kilgore, K. M., Harley, J. P., & Harvey, R. F. (1992). Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: II. Defining interval measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 507–518. [PubMed]

Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3 [Article] [PubMed]

Turner, C. D., Rey-Casserly, C., Liptak, C. C., & Chordas, C. (2009). Late effects of therapy for pediatric brain tumor survivors. Journal of Child Neurology, 24, 1455–1463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0883073809341709 [Article] [PubMed]

Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233. [Article] [PubMed]

Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF–36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 [Article] [PubMed]

World Health Organization. (1996). Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment WHOQOL–BREF. Geneva: Author.

Zebrack, B. (2000). Cancer survivors and quality of life: A critical review of the literature. Oncology Nursing Forum, 27, 1395–1401. [PubMed]

Zebrack, B., & Walsh-Burke, K. (2004). Advocacy needs for adolescents and young adult cancer survivors: Perspectives of pediatric oncology social workers. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 22, 75–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J077v22n02_05 [Article]

Zeltzer, L. K., Lu, Q., Leisenring, W., Tsao, J. C., Recklitis, C., Armstrong, G., . . . Ness, K. K. (2008). Psychosocial outcomes and health-related quality of life in adult childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 17, 435–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2541 [Article]

Zeltzer, L. K., Recklitis, C., Buchbinder, D., Zebrack, B., Casillas, J., Tsao, J. C., . . . Krull, K. (2009). Psychological status in childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27, 2396–2404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1433 [Article] [PubMed]

Figure 1.

Associations between AMPS ADL motor and process skills scores and SF–12 MCS and PCS scores. (A) ADL motor skills vs. PCS scores; (B) ADL motor skills vs. MCS scores; (C) ADL process skills vs. PCS scores; (D) ADL process skills vs. MCS scores. Higher motor and process skill scores represent higher performance; higher MCS and PCS scores represent higher health-related quality of life.

Note. ADLs = activities of daily living; AMPS = Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; MCS = mental component summary; PCS = physical component summary; SF–12 = Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

Full Size | Slide (.ppt)

Table 1.

Participant Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics

Characteristic	M (SD) or n (%)
Age at evaluation	21.0 (3.3)
Gender
Male	14 (38.9)
Female	22 (61.1)
Level of education (highest diploma)
Elementary school	13 (36.1)
High school	9 (25.0)
General and vocational college^a or professional school	11 (30.6)
University	3 (8.3)
Occupation
Studying or working full-time	20 (55.6)
Special program studies, sheltered or part-time employment	13 (36.1)
Unemployed	3 (8.3)
Independence status
Independent	6 (16.7)
Living with family or other supervision	30 (83.3)
Time since end of treatment, yr	10.1 (3.8)
Age at diagnosis, yr	8.9 (5.1)
Tumor type
Medulloblastoma or PNET	23 (63.9)
Astrocytoma or glioma	5 (13.9)
Other	8 (22.2)
Tumor location
Posterior fossa	19 (52.8)
Supratentorial or parasellar	17 (47.2)
Type of treatment
No radiation	1 (2.8)
Cranial radiation	7 (19.4)
Cranial and spinal radiation	28 (77.8)
Radiation dose
<55 Gy	20 (55.6)
≥55 Gy	16 (44.4)
Chronic health conditions^b
Endocrine	30 (83.3)
Musculoskeletal	17 (47.2)
Neurologic or neurosensory	27 (75.0)
Rehabilitation services^b
Occupational therapy	24 (66.7)
Physiotherapy	27 (75.0)
Psychology or neuropsychology	24 (66.7)
Speech therapy	4 (11.1)

Note. N = 36. PNET = primitive neuroectodermal tumor.

^aPreuniversity college in Quebec province education system.

^bParticipants could have more than one condition or type of service.

View Large

Table 1.

Participant Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics

Characteristic	M (SD) or n (%)
Age at evaluation	21.0 (3.3)
Gender
Male	14 (38.9)
Female	22 (61.1)
Level of education (highest diploma)
Elementary school	13 (36.1)
High school	9 (25.0)
General and vocational college^a or professional school	11 (30.6)
University	3 (8.3)
Occupation
Studying or working full-time	20 (55.6)
Special program studies, sheltered or part-time employment	13 (36.1)
Unemployed	3 (8.3)
Independence status
Independent	6 (16.7)
Living with family or other supervision	30 (83.3)
Time since end of treatment, yr	10.1 (3.8)
Age at diagnosis, yr	8.9 (5.1)
Tumor type
Medulloblastoma or PNET	23 (63.9)
Astrocytoma or glioma	5 (13.9)
Other	8 (22.2)
Tumor location
Posterior fossa	19 (52.8)
Supratentorial or parasellar	17 (47.2)
Type of treatment
No radiation	1 (2.8)
Cranial radiation	7 (19.4)
Cranial and spinal radiation	28 (77.8)
Radiation dose
<55 Gy	20 (55.6)
≥55 Gy	16 (44.4)
Chronic health conditions^b
Endocrine	30 (83.3)
Musculoskeletal	17 (47.2)
Neurologic or neurosensory	27 (75.0)
Rehabilitation services^b
Occupational therapy	24 (66.7)
Physiotherapy	27 (75.0)
Psychology or neuropsychology	24 (66.7)
Speech therapy	4 (11.1)

Note. N = 36. PNET = primitive neuroectodermal tumor.

^aPreuniversity college in Quebec province education system.

^bParticipants could have more than one condition or type of service.

Table 2.

Motor and Process Skill Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p <
AMPS Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p <
Motor skills, logits	1.77 (0.77)	[1.52, 2.02]	2.95 (0.53)	.05
Process skills, logits	1.29 (0.64)	[1.08, 1.49]	2.01 (0.43)	.05

Note. AMPS = Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

View Large

Table 2.

Motor and Process Skill Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p <
AMPS Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p <
Motor skills, logits	1.77 (0.77)	[1.52, 2.02]	2.95 (0.53)	.05
Process skills, logits	1.29 (0.64)	[1.08, 1.49]	2.01 (0.43)	.05

Note. AMPS = Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

Table 3.

SF–12 MCS and PCS Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p
SF–12 Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p
MCS	50.27 (7.55)	[37.89, 63.01]	50 (10)	.465
PCS	48.16 (9.33)	[45.11, 51.21]	50 (10)	.106

Note. M = mean; MCS = mental component summary; PCS = physical component summary; SD = standard deviation; SF–12 = Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Raw scores from the SF–12 were converted to t scores for this analysis.

View Large

Table 3.

SF–12 MCS and PCS Scores, Participants Versus Age Group Norms

	Participants (N = 36)		Norms	p
SF–12 Score	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	p
MCS	50.27 (7.55)	[37.89, 63.01]	50 (10)	.465
PCS	48.16 (9.33)	[45.11, 51.21]	50 (10)	.106

Note. M = mean; MCS = mental component summary; PCS = physical component summary; SD = standard deviation; SF–12 = Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Raw scores from the SF–12 were converted to t scores for this analysis.