Summary
Investigators use 2 fundamental approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Generic instruments include health profiles that tap into the full range of HR-QOL issues and are widely applicable, but may lack responsiveness to small but important changes in HR-QOL. Utility measures summarise HR-QOL in a single number between 0 (death) and 1 (full health) and are useful for economic analysis, but may lack responsiveness. Accumulating data suggest the alternatives to generic measures, instruments that are specific to a function or a health problem, are more responsive than generic measures. While direct comparison of the validity and responsiveness of alternative approaches remains limited and should be extended, it is already clear that comprehensive assessment of HR-QOL requires more than 1 type of instrument.
To be useful, HR-QOL instruments must be interpretable. Investigators are beginning to elucidate what constitutes trivial, small but important, or large changes in HR-QOL. Approaches include both within-and between-patient global ratings, observing HR-QOL scores in different patient populations, and observing the magnitude of change in HR-QOL with established interventions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272 (8): 619–26
Guyatt GH, Cook OJ. Health status, quality of life, and the individual patient: a commentary on ‘A Critical Appraisal ofQuality-of-Life Measurements’ byTM Gill and AR Feinstein. JAMA 1994; 272: 630–1
Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: F217–32
Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life: basic sciences review. Ann Intern Med 1993; 70: 225–30
Cantril H. The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press, 1965
Tandon PK, Stander H, Schwarz Jr RP. Analysis of quality of life data from a randomized, placebo controlled heart-failuretrial. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 955–62
Smith 0, Baker G, Davies G, et al. Outcomes of add-on treatment with Lamotrigine in partial epilepsy. Epilepsia 1993; 34: 312–22
Chang SW, Fine R, Siegel 0, et al. The impact of diuretic therapy on reported sexual function. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 2402–8
Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan WW, et al. Methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: impact on quality of life assessedby traditional standard-item and individualized patient preferencehealth status questionnaires. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 59–62
Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D. The use of generic and specific quality-of-life measures in hemodialysis patients treatedwith erythropoietin. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12 Suppl.: 1685–795
Goldstein RS, Gort EH, Guyatt GH, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of respiratory rehabilitation. Lancet 1994; 344: 1394–7
Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health statusmeasure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805
Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, et al. The Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262: 925–30
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83
Parkerson GR, Gehlback SH, Wagner EH, et al. The Duke-UNC Health Profile: an adult health status instrument for primarycare. Med Care 1981; 19: 806–28
Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol 1982; 1: 61–80
Feeny DH, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 490–502
Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 1992 45: 1341–5
Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Keller JL, et al. Measuring functional status in chronic lung disease: conclusions from a randomizedcontrol trial. Respir Med 1989 83: 293–7
Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, et al. A new measure of quality of life for clinical trials inchronic lung disease. Thorax 1987 42: 773–8
Rosenthal M, Lohr KN, Rubenstein RS, et al. A conceptualization and measurement of physiologic health for adults:congestive heart failure. Santa Monica (CA): Rand Corporation, 1981
Mcavin CR, Artvinli M, Naoe H. Dyspnea, disability and distance walked: comparison of estimates of exercise performancein respiratory disease. BMJ 1978; 2: 241–3
Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Keller J, et al. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the meaning of a change in quality-of-lifequestionnaire score. Control Clin Trials 1989 10: 407–15
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81–7
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, et al. Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 27–34
Redelmeier DA, Goldstein RS, Guyatt GH. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of twotechniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 1215–9
Deyo RA, Inui TS, Leininger JD, et al. Measuring functional outcomes in chronic disease: a comparison of traditionalscales and a self-administered health status questionnairein patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 1983; 21: 180–92
Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805
McSweeney AJ, Grant I, Heaton RK, et. al. Life quality of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Intern Med 1982; 142: 473–8
Fletcher A, McLoone P, Bulpitt C. Quality of life on angina therapy: a randomised controlled trial of transdermal glyceryltrinitrate against placebo. Lancet 1988; 2: 4–7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guyatt, G.H., Jaeschke, R.J. Reassessing Quality-of-Life Instruments in the Evaluation of New Drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 12, 621–626 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712060-00002
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712060-00002