Generic tools for measuring health-related quality of life in coronary artery disease

References

• Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care I: Applications and issues in assessment. Br. Med. J.305(6861), 1074–1077 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher A. Measuring the effects of antihypertensive therapy upon the quality of life. Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens.4(6), 538–542 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Gray A, Doll H, Lawrence K, Keoghane S, Layte R. Evaluation of index and profile measures of health status in a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of the medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey, EuroQol, and disease specific measures. Med. Care35(11), 1109–1118 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen PF, McMillan AS, Walshaw D, Locker D. A comparison of the validity of generic- and disease-specific measures in the assessment of oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol.27(5), 344–352 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, Elinson J. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. Am. J. Cardiol.54(7), 908–913 (1984).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenfield S, Nelson EC. Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings. Med. Care30(5 Suppl.), MS23–MS41 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher AE, Bulpitt CJ. Measurement of quality of life in clinical trials of therapy. Cardiology75(Suppl. 1), 41–52 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon T, Lim LL, Heller RF. Quality of life: an index for identifying high-risk cardiac patients. J. Clin. Epidemiol.54(9), 952–960 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Rumsfeld JS, MaWhinney S, McCarthy M et al. Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Participants of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Processes, Structures, and Outcomes of Care in Cardiac Surgery. JAMA281(14), 1298–1303 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozaffarian D, Bryson CL, Spertus JA, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Anginal symptoms consistently predict total mortality among outpatients with coronary artery disease. Am. Heart J.146(6), 1015–1022 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA288(23), 3027–3034 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br. Med. J.316(7133), 736–741 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med. Care27(3 Suppl.), S217–S232 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kremer B, Klimek L, Bullinger M, Mosges R. Generic or disease-specific quality of life scales to characterize health status in allergic rhinitis? Allergy56(10), 957–963 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritva K, Pekka R, Harri S. Agreement between a generic and disease-specific quality-of-life instrument: the 15D and the SGRQ in asthmatic patients. Qual. Life Res.9(9), 997–1003 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ134(8), 889–895 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten SJ, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. CMAJ140(12), 1441–1448 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiklund I, Karlberg J. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials. Selecting quality-of-life measures. Control Clin. Trials12(4 Suppl.), S204–S216 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J. Clin. Epidemiol.56(1), 52–60 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Fihn SD. Monitoring the quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. Am. J. Cardiol.74(12), 1240–1244 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med. Care36(4), 491–502 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engstrom CP, Persson LO, Larsson S, Sullivan M. Health-related quality of life in COPD: why both disease-specific and generic measures should be used. Eur. Respir. J.18(1), 69–76 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEwen J. The Nottingham health profile. In Quality of life assessment, key issues in the 1990s.Walker S et al. (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 111–130 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Thorsen H, McKenna SP, Gottschalck L. The Danish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: its adaptation and reliability. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care11(2), 124–129 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hunt S. Measuring health in clinical care and clinical trials. In Measuring health: a practical approach. G Teeling Smith (Ed). John Wiley, Chichester, UK. (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Bowling A. Measuring health : a review of quality of life measurement scales. 2nd ed. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK. (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Skinner JS, Albers CJ, Hall RJ, Adams PC. Comparison of Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) scores with exercise duration and measures of ischaemia during treadmill exercise testing in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur. Heart J.16(11), 1561–1565 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser MC, Fletcher AE, Parr G, Simpson A, Bulpitt CJ. A comparison of three quality of life instruments in subjects with angina pectoris: the Sickness Impact Profile, the Nottingham Health Profile, and the Quality of Well Being Scale. J. Clin. Epidemiol.47(2), 157–163 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Dempster M, Donnelly M. Measuring the health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease. Heart83(6), 641–644 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R. Measurement of health status in patients with chronic illness: comparison of the Nottingham health profile and the general health questionnaire. Fam. Pract.7(2), 121–124 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiklund I. The Nottingham Health Profile – a measure of health-related quality of life. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care (Suppl. 1), 15–18 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Bergner M. Development, testing, and use of the Sickness Impact Profile, in Quality of life assessment, key issues in the 1990s. Walker S et al. (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 95–110 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Jr., Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J. Clin. Epidemiol.51(11), 903–912 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care30(6), 473–483 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowling A, Bond M, Jenkinson C, Lamping DL. Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. J Public Health Med.21(3), 255–270 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lyons RA, Wareham K, Lucas M, Price D, Williams J, Hutchings HA. SF-36 scores vary by method of administration: implications for study design. J Public Health Med.21(1), 41–45 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, Paice C. Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol. Community Health53(1), 46–50 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol.51(11), 1115–1128 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. J. Clin. Epidemiol.51(11), 969–973 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singleton N, Turner A. Measuring patients’ views of their health. SF 36 is suitable for elderly patients. Br. Med. J.307(6896), 126–127 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Failde I, Ramos I. Validity and reliability of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with coronary artery disease. J. Clin. Epidemiol.53(4), 359–365 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. Br. Med. J.305(6846), 160–164 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown N, Melville M, Gray D, Young T, Skene AM, Hampton JR. Comparison of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire with the Nottingham Health Profile in long-term survivors of a myocardial infarction. J. Public Health Med.22(2), 167–175 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Brown N, Melville M, Gray et al. Quality of life four years after acute myocardial infarction: short form 36 scores compared with a normal population. Heart81(4), 352–358 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziebland S. The short form 36 health status questionnaire: clues from the Oxford region’s normative data about its usefulness in measuring health gain in population surveys. J. Epidemiol. Community Health49(1), 102–105 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mallinson S. Listening to respondents: a qualitative assessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Soc. Sci. Med.54(1), 11–21 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz CE, Rapkin BD. Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual. Life Outcomes2, 16 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J. Clin. Epidemiol.51(11), 1171–1178 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Layte R. Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey). J. Health Serv. Res. Policy2(1), 14–18 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Penn A, Lau F, Noseworthy T. Replicability of SF-36 summary scores by the SF-12 in stroke patients. Stroke30(6), 1213–1217 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riddle DL, Lee KT, Stratford PW. Use of SF-36 and SF-12 health status measures: a quantitative comparison for groups versus individual patients. Med. Care39(8), 867–878 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med.19(2), 179–186 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crilley JG, Farrer M. Impact of first myocardial infarction on self-perceived health status. QJM94(1), 13–18 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Rubenach S, Shadbolt B, McCallum J, Nakamura T. Assessing health-related quality of life following myocardial infarction: is the SF-12 useful? J. Clin. Epidemiol.55(3), 306–309 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med. Care28(7), 632–642 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middel B, Stewart R, Bouma J, van Sonderen E, van den Heuvel WJ. How to validate clinically important change in health-related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating? J. Eval. Clin. Pract.7(4), 399–410 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keeffe ST, Lye M, Donnellan C, Carmichael DN. Reproducibility and responsiveness of quality of life assessment and six minute walk test in elderly heart failure patients. Heart80(4), 377–382 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med. Care38(9 Suppl.), II84– II90 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melville M, Asadi-Lari M, Brown N, Young T, Hampton JR, Gray D. Quality of life assessment using the SF-12 is as reliable and sensitive as the SF-36 in distinguishing symptom severity in myocardial infarction survivors. Heart89(12), 1445–1446 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy16(3), 199–208 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ.5(2), 141–154 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hisashige A, Mikasa H, Katayama T. Description and valuation of health-related quality of life among the general public in Japan by the EuroQol. J. Med. Invest.45(1–4), 123–129 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc. Sci. Med.39(11), 1537–1544 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual. Life Res.7(2), 155–166 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med. Care38(1), 115–121 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roca-Cusachs A, Dalfo A, Badia X, Aristegui I, Roset M. Relation between clinical and therapeutic variables and quality of life in hypertension. J. Hypertens.19(10), 1913–1919 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL) development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Med.46(12), 1569–1585 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Martin M. Validation of the United States’ version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. J. Clin. Epidemiol.53(1), 1–12 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL) position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sci. Med.41(10), 1403–1409 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Skevington SM. Measuring quality of life in Britain: introducing the WHOQOL-100. J. Psychosom. Res.47(5), 449–459 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol. Med.28(3), 551–558 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowling A. Measuring disease: a review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. 2nd ed. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK. (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen-dimensional generic measure of health-related quality of life (15-D) and its applications. In Quality of life assessment, key issues in the 1990s. Walker S et al (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Taylor R, Kirby B, Burdon D, Caves R. The assessment of recovery in patients after myocardial infarction using three generic quality-of-life measures. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil.18(2), 139–144 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alonso J, Permanyer-Miralda G, Cascant P, Brotons C, Prieto L, Soler-Soler J. Measuring functional status of chronic coronary patients. Reliability, validity and responsiveness to clinical change of the reduced version of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). Eur. Heart J.18(3), 414–419 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Beaufait D, Nelson E, Landgraf JM. COOP measures of functional status. In Tools for primary care research. M Stewart et al. (Eds). Sage, Newbury Park, UK (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Jenkinson D, Shepperd S, Layte R, Petersen S. Evaluation of treatment for congestive heart failure in patients aged 60 years and older using generic measures of health status (SF-36 and COOP charts). Age Ageing26(1), 7–13 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Mayou R, Day A, Garratt A, Juszczak E. Evaluation of the Dartmouth COOP charts in a large-scale community survey in the United Kingdom. J Public Health Med.24(2), 106–111 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowling A, Windsor J. Discriminative power of the health status questionnaire 12 in relation to age, sex, and longstanding illness: findings from a survey of households in Great Britain. J Epidemiol. Community Health51(5), 564–773 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar