Table 3.
Quality of life comparison bewtween the subgroup urban (< 28 km) vs. rural (> 28 km) regarding the functioning scales and the symptom subscales/items of the EORTC-QLQ Q30 questionaire. Note: Kruskall–Wallis-Test for independent variables was performed. (a) null hypothesis: QoL functioning scale/symptom scale is between the subgroup Leipzig vs. Outside of Leipzig identical. Bold p values represent significant findings (p < 0.05)
| EORTC-QLQ Q30 analysis urban < 28.1 km vs rural > 28.1 km | ||
|---|---|---|
| Null hypothesis (a) | p | |
| Functioning scales | ||
| Global health QoL | Fail to reject | 0.132 |
| Physical function | Fail to reject | 0.488 |
| Role function | Fail to reject | 0.073 |
| Emotional function | Fail to reject | 0.058 |
| Cognitive function | Fail to reject | 0.177 |
| Social function | Fail to reject | 0.092 |
| Symptom scales | ||
| Fatigue | Fail to reject | 0.052 |
| Nausea and vomitting | Reject | 0.043 |
| Pain | Fail to reject | 0.178 |
| Dyspnoe | Fail to reject | 0.640 |
| Insomnia | Reject | 0.024 |
| Appetite loss | Reject | 0.015 |
| Constipation | Fail to reject | 0.374 |
| Diarrhoe | Fail to reject | 0.196 |
| Financial difficulties | Reject | < 0.001 |