Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 2, 2002 - Issue 2
Submit an article Journal homepage
17
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Measuring health-related quality of life in the clinical setting

Dea Belazi Office of Health Policy & Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, Center for Pharmaceutical Appraisal & Outcomes Research, Abbott Labs, Abbott Park, IL, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. [email protected]
,
Neil I Goldfarb Office of Health Policy & Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. [email protected]
&
Hope He Office of Health Policy & Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. [email protected]
Pages 109-117 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAIVIA 272(8), 619–626 (1994).
  • ••Well written piece reviewing anddiscussing the attributes of QoL instruments.
  • McDowell I, Newell C. In:11/kasuringl-kalth: a guide to iating sulks and questionnaila Mcdowell I, Newell C (Ed.), Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, USA (1996). Perhaps the most comprehensive text that reviews the psychometrics, validity/ relibility and presents many of the actual health status tools available.
  • Guyatt GH, Feeney DH, Patrick DL. Measuring Health-related Quality of Life. Ann. Int. Med.118(8), 622–629 (1993).
  • Cella DF, Bonomi AE. Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology (Huntingt) 9(11 Suppl), 47–60 (1995).
  • Carr AJ, Thompson PW, Kirwan JR. Quality of life measures. BE J. Rheumatol 35(3), 275–281 (1996).
  • Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. chapter. In: SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpivtation guide, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, USA 7:1–7:16 (1993).
  • •Concise reference for the SF-36 instrument.
  • UK Clearing House Project Team. Introduction to Outcomes Briefing.Outcomes Briefing 4, 1–32 (1994).
  • Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB et al The Sickness Impact Profile conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of health status measure. Health Serv. 6(3), 393–415 (1976).
  • van Agt H, Essink-Bot M, Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc. Sci. Med. 39(11), 1537–1544 (1994).
  • Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it to the SF-36 health survey questionnaire.Qual Life Res. 2(3), 169–180 (1993).
  • Chambers LW The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire (MHIQ: methodological documentation and report of the second generation of investigations. (Report), Dept. of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada (1983).
  • Fortin F, Kerouac S. Validation of questionnaires on physical function. NUTS. Res. 26(2), 128–135 (1977).
  • Hunt SM, Mckenna SP, Williams J. Reliability of a population survey tool for measuring perceived health problems: a study of patients with osteoarthritis. Epiderniol. Community Health 35(4), 297–300 (1981).
  • Juniper EF, Norman GR, Cox FM, Roberts JN. Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life in asthma. Eur. Respir. 18(1), 38–44 (2001).
  • Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. QualityMetric, Inc., Lincoln, RI, USA (1998).
  • •Concise reference for the SF-12 instrument.
  • Geigle R, Jones SB. Outcomes measurement: A report for the front. Inquhy27 (1), 7–13 (1990).
  • Deyo RA, Carter WB. Strategies for improving and expanding the application of health status measures in clinical settings: a researcher-developer viewpoint. led. Care 30(5 Suppl), M5176—M5186 (1992).
  • Calkins DR, Rubenstein LV, Cleary PD et al Failure of physicians to recognize functional disability in ambulatory patients. Ann. Intern. Med. 114(6), 451–454 (1991).
  • Greenfield S, Nelson EC. Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings. Med. Carr 30(5 Suppl), M523—M541 (1992).
  • Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC et al Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an out-patient setting. Thomx52(10), 879–887 (1997).
  • Anyanwu AC, McGuire A, Rogers CA, Murday AJ. Assessment of quality of life in lung transplantation using a simple generic tool. Thom,y56(3), 218–222 (2001).
  • Rock JA. Quality-of-life assessment in gynecologic surgery. I Repmd. Med. 46(5 Suppl.), 515–519 (2001).
  • Moore HL, White JV. Determination and importance of clinical and patient-based measures in outcome assessment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 14(1), 22–28 (2001).
  • Finlay AY. Quality of life assessments in dermatology. Semin. Cutan. Med. Surg. 17(4), 291–296 (1998).
  • Wrobel JS. Outcomes Research in Podiatric Medicine. jAm. Podiatc Med. Assoc. 90(8), 403–410 (2000).
  • Hobart J, Freeman J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson A. The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: why basic assumptions must be tested. j Neural Neurosurg. PTchiatry71 (3), 363–370 (2001).
  • Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J eta]. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. 34(12), 585–597 (1981).
  • Hombrook MC, Goodman MJ. Chronic disease, functional health status and demographics: a multi- dimensional approach to risk adjustment. Health Serv. Res. 31(3), 283–307 (1996).
  • Chapman MM, Meyer KB. Assessing health status in a dialysis clinic. Am. I-kalth Syst. Mann. 52\(Suppl. 3). S31—S32 (1995).
  • Wagner AK, Bungay KM, Bromfeld EB, Ehrenberg BL. Assessing the health status of adult patients with epilepsy. Am. Health Syst. Pharm. 52 (Suppl. 3), S29-S31 (1995).
  • Davies AR, Halpern R. VHA White Paper: Healthcare Outcomes: An Introduction. Voluntary Hospitals of America, Inc., Irving, USA 37 (1993)
  • Lansky D, Butler JBV, Waller FT. Using health status measures in the hospital setting: from acute care to 'outcomes management.' Med. Care 30(5 Suppl), M557—MS73 (1992).
  • Taenzer P, Bultz BD, Carlson LE et al Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behavior and patient satisfaction in lung cancer out-patients. Psychooncology9(3), 203–213 (2000).
  • ••Describes the impact and effect of routineQoL measurement in cancer for patient care.
  • Espallargues M, Valderas JM, Alonso J. Provision of feedback on perceived health status to healthcare professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med. Care 38(2), 175–186 (2000).
  • ••Assess the impact of patient care when clinicians utilize patient health status information.
  • McLachlan SA, Allenby A, Mathews J et al Randomized trial of co-ordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. j Clin. Oncol 19(21), 4117–4125 (2001).
  • Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BE Med 322 (729), 1297–1300 (2001).
  • •Essential when trying to retrieve information about the potential benefits of measuring QoL.
  • Thornicroft G, Slade M. Are routine outcome measures feasible in mental health? Qual Healthcare 9(2), 84- (2000).
  • Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Natl Cancer Inst. 85(5), 365–376 (1993).
  • Lofland JH, Schaffer M, Goldfarb N. Evaluating health-related quality of life: cost comparison of computerized touch-screen technology and traditional paper systems. Pharmacotherapy20(11), 931–935 (2000).
  • Bjorner JB, Ware JE. Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes. Med. Outcome Pot Mon. 3, 12–19 (1998).
  • ••Well-written paper describing the use ofItem Response theory in measuring health status.
  • Lord FM, Norvick MR. Statistical theories of mental test scars. Addison-Wesley, Reading, UK (1986).
  • Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA (1980).
  • Ware JE, Bjorner J, Kosinski M. Dynamic Health Assessments: the search for more practical and more precise outcomes measures. Quality of Life News Letter 21, 11–13 (1999).
  • Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Garrett A, Peto V, Stewart-Brown S. Can item response theory reduce patient burden when measuring health status in neurological disorders? Results from Rasch analysis of the SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10). Med. Care 71(2), 220–224 (2000).

Websites

  • Assist Technologies. Outcomes Analyzer. (2001) . www.assisttouch.com. (Accessed December 10, 2001).
  • QualityMetric, Inc. Disease Impact Surveys. (2001) . www.qmetric.com/ innohome/indi.shtml. (Accessed December 14, 2001).
  • Mapi Research Institute. Quality of Life Instrument Database. (2001) . http:// 195.101.204.50:8081/. (Accessed December 23, 2001).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.