scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 0962-9343

Quality of Life Research 

Springer Science+Business Media
About: Quality of Life Research is an academic journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Quality of life & Quality of life (healthcare). It has an ISSN identifier of 0962-9343. Over the lifetime, 5573 publications have been published receiving 277335 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group and further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.
Abstract: This article introduces the new 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) health status measure. EQ-5D currently measures health using three levels of severity in five dimensions. A EuroQol Group task force was established to find ways of improving the instrument's sensitivity and reducing ceiling effects by increasing the number of severity levels. The study was performed in the United Kingdom and Spain. Severity labels for 5 levels in each dimension were identified using response scaling. Focus groups were used to investigate the face and content validity of the new versions, including hypothetical health states generated from those versions. Selecting labels at approximately the 25th, 50th, and 75th centiles produced two alternative 5-level versions. Focus group work showed a slight preference for the wording 'slight-moderate-severe' problems, with anchors of 'no problems' and 'unable to do' in the EQ-5D functional dimensions. Similar wording was used in the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. Hypothetical health states were well understood though participants stressed the need for the internal coherence of health states. A 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group. Further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.

5,345 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Overall, the WHOQOL-BREF is a sound, cross-culturally valid assessment of QOL, as reflected by its four domains: physical, psychological, social and environment.
Abstract: Quality of life (QOL) assessments that are easily administered and which do not impose a great burden on the respondent are needed for use in large epidemiological surveys, clinical settings and clinical trials. Using data from the WHOQOL-BREF field trials, the objectives of this work are to examine the performance of the WHOQOL-BREF as an integrated instrument, and to test its main psychometric properties. The WHOQOL-BREF is a 26-item version of the WHOQOL-100 assessment. Its psychometric properties were analysed using cross-sectional data obtained from a survey of adults carried out in 23 countries (n = 11,830). Sick and well respondents were sampled from the general population, as well as from hospital, rehabilitation and primary care settings, serving patients with physical and mental disorders and with respect to quotas of important socio-demographic variables. The WHOQOL-BREF self-assessment was completed, together with socio-demographic and health status questions. Analyses of internal consistency, item-total correlations, discriminant validity and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, indicate that the WHOQOL-BREF has good to excellent psychometric properties of reliability and performs well in preliminary tests of validity. These results indicate that overall, the WHOQOL-BREF is a sound, cross-culturally valid assessment of QOL, as reflected by its four domains: physical, psychological, social and environment.

3,518 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peer-reviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.
Abstract: Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis)agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peer-reviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.

2,772 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The SAC's current conceptualization of eight key attributes of health status and QoL instruments and the criteria by which instruments would be reviewed on each of those attributes are offered.
Abstract: The field of health status and quality of life (QoL) measurement – as a formal discipline with a cohesive theoretical framework, accepted methods, and diverse applications – has been evolving for the better part of 30 years. To identify health status and QoL instruments and review them against rigorous criteria as a precursor to creating an instrument library for later dissemination, the Medical Outcomes Trust in 1994 created an independently functioning Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). In the mid-1990s, the SAC defined a set of attributes and criteria to carry out instrument assessments; 5 years later, it updated and revised these materials to take account of the expanding theories and technologies upon which such instruments were being developed. This paper offers the SAC's current conceptualization of eight key attributes of health status and QoL instruments (i.e., conceptual and measurement model; reliability; validity; responsiveness; interpretability; respondent and administrative burden; alternate forms; and cultural and language adaptations) and the criteria by which instruments would be reviewed on each of those attributes. These are suggested guidelines for the field to consider and debate; as measurement techniques become both more familiar and more sophisticated, we expect that experts will wish to update and refine these criteria accordingly.

1,965 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications, and across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% Cls were very wide.
Abstract: Interest has increased in recent years in incorporating health status measures into clinical practice for use at the individual-patient level. We propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: (1) practical features, (2) breadth of health measured, (3) depth of health measured, (4) precision for cross-sectional assessment, (5) precision for longitudinal monitoring and (6) validity. We evaluate five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) that have been proposed for use in clinical practice. We conducted an analytical literature review to evaluate the six measurement standards for individual-patient applications across the five surveys. The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications. Across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% Cls were very wide. There was little evidence of the validity of the five surveys for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The health status surveys examined in this paper may not be suitable for monitoring the health and treatment status of individual patients. Clinical usefulness of existing measures might be demonstrated as clinical experience is broadened. At this time, however, it seems that new instruments, or adaptation of existing measures and scaling methods, are needed for individual-patient assessment and monitoring.

1,792 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
2023156
2022264
2021430
2020311
2019300
2018307