Research ArticleResearch

Measuring health-related quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings

Critical review of concepts and 3 tools

Carri Hand
Canadian Family Physician July 2016; 62 (7) e375-e383;

Abstract

Objective To describe health-related quality of life (HRQOL) conceptual frameworks, critically review 3 commonly used HRQOL scales relevant to adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings, and make recommendations for using HRQOL scales in primary care practice.

Data sources Information was accessed regarding HRQOL conceptual and theoretical approaches. A comprehensive search strategy identified 3 commonly used scales that met the review criteria and evidence regarding use of the scales in adults with chronic conditions in community settings.

Scale selection Scales were selected if they were designed for clinical use; were easy to administer; were generic and broad in content areas; and contained some individualized items. Scales were critiqued according to content development, theoretical basis, psychometric properties, scoring, feasibility, the concepts being measured, and the number of items that measured an individualized concept.

Synthesis Early HRQOL approaches focused on health and functional status while recent approaches incorporate individualized concepts such as the person’s own values and the environment. The abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Duke Health Profile were critiqued. All address physical, mental, and social domains, while the WHOQOL-BREF also addresses environment. Psychometric evidence supports use of the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF with this population. The SF-36 has the most evidence of responsiveness but has some floor and ceiling effects, while the WHOQOL-BREF does not appear to have floor or ceiling effects but has limited evidence of responsiveness. The WHOQOL-BREF has the highest proportion of individualized items.

Conclusion Measurement of HRQOL in adults with chronic conditions can support patient management and contribute to primary care service evaluation. Scales that are based on a broad definition of health and that address the individualized nature of HRQOL are appropriate for these purposes, such as the WHOQOL-BREF. Psychometric evidence supports using this scale for adults with chronic conditions; more information about its responsiveness is needed.

As primary care transforms across Canada, greater emphasis is being placed on quality of care and accountability for outcomes, as well as on prevention and management of chronic conditions and patient self-management.1 Typical indicators of patient outcomes (such as blood pressure or smoking rate) do not capture the breadth of services that are being provided in primary care, nor do they provide enough detail to guide quality improvement. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a concept that can be useful in evaluation and improvement efforts. This paper will provide guidance to primary care providers regarding the use of HRQOL instruments in practice for adults with chronic conditions.

Health-related quality of life is defined as those aspects of quality of life (QOL) that directly or indirectly relate to health.2,3 While the terms quality of life and health-related quality of life are often used interchangeably, the 2 are generally considered distinct concepts. Quality of life can be considered overall satisfaction with life, either as a single concept4 or broken down into domains.5 Health-related quality of life is a narrower concept that includes physical, psychological, and social domains6,7 and can be considered one’s subjective assessment of the physical, psychological, and social domains of health.7 Health-related quality of life scales can measure the results of health care, supplementing traditional physiologic measures of health status.8

Health-related quality of life scales might be specific, applying to certain conditions, populations, or functional issues, or they might be generic. Generic scales are preferred when measuring HRQOL in people with comorbidities9 or when evaluating multicomponent interventions. They have similar or better responsiveness to change compared with disease-specific scales.10–13 Generic scales include health profiles, which generate scores in a number of different domains, and health utility measures, which generate a single score of HRQOL such as a quality-adjusted life-year.6 Although the reliability of patient-reported outcomes such as HRQOL might be challenged, most common clinical tools have similar levels of error to patient-reported outcome measures.14 Adults with chronic conditions such as arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease experience lower HRQOL than people without these conditions do15–18; the presence of comorbidity further decreases HRQOL.19–22 Presence of chronic conditions relates to a number of HRQOL domains such as increased pain23 and difficulties in physical function,9,24 mental health,25 general health, social function,26 home management,27 energy, and sleep.28 All of these domains can be affected by primary care services (eg, pain medication, mental health counseling, and self-management education to assist in managing daily activities). Measuring HRQOL can be an important component of evaluating primary care services, including complex processes such as intervention dose-response relationships.29

In addition to evaluating service outcomes, measuring HRQOL in adults with chronic conditions can promote high-quality patient care. Health-related quality of life scales capture the patient’s perspective, a key aspect of providing the patient-centred, collaborative care that is important to patients30,31; this type of care can also create positive outcomes for patients such as improved self-management skills.32 Measuring HRQOL can improve clinician awareness of patient concerns and patient-clinician communication,33,34 supporting service and program planning. Measuring HRQOL can also improve patient HRQOL itself.35

To appropriately select and use HRQOL scales, it is important to understand the conceptual basis, concepts measured, and psychometric properties of HRQOL scales. While most HRQOL scales cover mental, physical, and social domains, the scales’ items might address different concepts. For example, one scale might ask about difficulty sleeping, while another might ask about satisfaction with sleep. The latter concept is more “subjective” or individualized and related to the person’s own life.36 Previous reviews of HRQOL scales have described the psychometric properties and domains of the scales37 or the conceptual model underpinning each scale.38 No previous review has closely examined the concepts being measured or use of HRQOL scales for adults with a range of chronic conditions in primary care settings. To fill these gaps and assist primary care practitioners in using HRQOL scales, the objectives of this paper are to describe approaches to conceptualizing HRQOL, critically review 3 commonly used HRQOL scales relevant to adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings, and make recommendations for using HRQOL scales in primary care practice.

DATA SOURCES

Several steps were performed to gather and synthesize information.

Theoretical approaches

Approaches to HRQOL were synthesized by accessing theoretical papers about HRQOL.

Scale identification

Generic, profile-type HRQOL scales commonly used for adults were identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search terms included the MEDLINE subject headings health status indicators or questionnaires or outcome assessment (health care) and quality of life or health status, as well as the EMBASE subject headings health survey or questionnaire or outcome assessment and quality of life or health status. Only English-language scales for those aged 18 years and older published from 1980 to 2014 were included. Given the numerous studies on QOL, health status, and HRQOL, the search was also limited to review articles, as such articles would likely capture the most commonly used scales. The search identified 1553 articles, 36 of which reviewed QOL, health status, or HRQOL scales. From these 36 articles, 26 QOL, HRQOL, or health status scales were identified. One of the reviews identified the most commonly evaluated patient-reported health outcome measures up to the year 2000.39 The HRQOL profile-type scales that were identified included the Dartmouth COOP Functional Assessment Charts, the Duke Health Profile, the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Sickness Impact Profile, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHOQOL-100).39 Another review identified the most commonly used generic HRQOL instruments from 2000 to 2006 and the profile-type scales were the Dartmouth COOP Functional Assessment Charts, the NHP, the SF-36, the Sickness Impact Profile, and the WHOQOL-100.40 All of the instruments identified in the 2 reviews were also identified in the current search, while the current search also identified the abbreviated WHOQOL-100 (WHOQOL-BREF). The remaining instruments identified by the current search either focused on QOL broadly rather than HRQOL, or focused on a specific population such as older adults.

SCALE SELECTION

Three HRQOL scales were selected to be critically appraised based on the following criteria:

  • they were designed for clinical use;

  • they were short and easy to administer and score;

  • they were generic and applicable to primary care patients with varying diagnoses;

  • they had broad content areas (ie, physical, psychological, and social domains); and

  • they contained some individualized items.

These criteria were applied to the 9 potential scales identified above. The Dartmouth COOP Functional Assessment Charts, the Duke Health Profile, the NHP, the SF-12, the SF-36, and the WHOQOL-BREF all met the selection criteria. The SF-12 and Dartmouth COOP Functional Assessment Charts are both based on the SF-36,41 and as the SF-36 was the more frequently used tool,39 it was selected for review. Finally, the NHP is slightly longer than the remaining 3 instruments (45 items)42; therefore, it was not selected for review.

Scale descriptions and properties

Information was gathered regarding the development, content, and psychometric properties of the selected scales when used for adults with chronic conditions from textbooks and user manuals, and by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search terms included key words for the scale names and abbreviations, psychometric properties, and diagnosis (eg, heart, cardiac, diabetes, COPD, arthritis). Arthritis, cardiac conditions, diabetes, and COPD are the most prevalent chronic conditions in older adults43 that also affect QOL44; thus, evidence related to these diagnoses was identified. The search was limited to English-language articles published from 1980 to 2014. To better apply to a Canadian primary care context, only evidence from Western countries regarding community settings was reported.

Critical review

The selected scales were critically reviewed according to established criteria: content development, theoretical basis, psychometric properties, scoring, and feasibility.45,46 The scales were further assessed regarding the concept being measured in each item and the number of items that measure an individualized concept such as satisfaction with ability, distress, enjoyment, domain importance or goals, or comparison to the person’s own standards.36

SYNTHESIS

Approaches to HRQOL

Functional and health status approaches to HRQOL.

Most HRQOL approaches focus on function, health status, or symptoms, and locate the cause of difficulties within the person, with little attention to the person’s environment. These approaches are based on a definition of health as physical, mental, and social well-being47 and involve physical, mental, social, and role domains.48 In functional status approaches, no conceptual models were developed and the focus was on assessing function to make inferences about QOL. In health status approaches, QOL was conceptualized as closely related to health but details of this relationship were not specified.49 Most approaches did not consider the person’s subjective judgments about QOL concepts and sometimes relied on an outside observer to measure QOL.49 The NHP,50 the SF-36,51 and the Duke Health Profile52 are examples of scales that use the functional and health status approaches to HRQOL.

Alternative approaches to HRQOL.

Alternative approaches to HRQOL move beyond health status to incorporate concepts such as participation in society, satisfaction with aspects of life,53 and the environment. They emphasize individualized concepts such as goals, expectations, satisfaction, distress, and enjoyment,49,54,55 which are critical within appraisal of HRQOL36,56 and help health practitioners gain a better understanding of patients’ needs and desires. Recent models have also incorporated the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health57 or the social model of disability into HRQOL, locating the source of difficulties in the person and the environment. Such approaches encourage environmental interventions or adaptations and might assign smaller importance to impairments, as particular limitations do not necessarily affect HRQOL negatively.58

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines QOL as “individuals’ perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns.”55 They developed a model of QOL based on this definition that includes physical health, psychological state, independence, social relationships, and environment. It includes more objective concepts such as perceived function but also addresses the meaning or importance of functional levels.55 A measure grounded in this approach is the WHOQOL-BREF.59 Although the WHO model of QOL purports to describe overall QOL, it actually appears to describe HRQOL; part of the rationale for developing the WHOQOL-100 was to address a gap in health measurement, in that previous scales focused on the effect of disease on function and perceived health in a mechanistic way.55

Critical reviews

The WHOQOL-BREF,59 the SF-36,51 and the Duke Health Profile52 were identified as commonly used37,38,60–63 generic HRQOL scales among adults and older adults with chronic conditions that met the review criteria. The WHOQOL-BREF is intended to evaluate QOL and the effect of a disease, disorder, or health intervention on QOL, across conditions and disorders and nations in medical practice and research.55 The health care focus differentiates the WHOQOL-BREF from other measures of QOL that might be too broad for use in health care settings. It was developed through a multistage international process and extensive field testing with people who had varying diagnoses and with a small percentage of healthy individuals. It is based on the WHO definition of QOL.59

The SF-36 is intended to evaluate health status in clinical practice and research, across conditions and with healthy people. The content was based on previous questionnaires and a definition of health status as involving physical, mental, social, and role domains.51

The Duke Health Profile is intended to measure functional health status in adults in primary care practice and research.52 The content was based on previous scales and the literature64 and has a definition of health that involves physical, mental, and social well-being, the ability to perform social roles, and coping.65 Table 1 provides the full critique of each scale.16,18,45,59,64,66–98

View this table:
Table 1.

Critique of health-related quality of life scales: Comments regarding psychometric properties related to individuals with arthritis, cardiac conditions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes.

DISCUSSION

The WHO approach to HRQOL builds on the functional and health status approaches and includes physical, social, and psychological domains and interaction with the environment. It contains ideas of health and well-being and individualized concepts such as goals, expectations, satisfaction, and importance. This type of approach is crucial to providing patient-centred care that takes into account the context of patients’ lives.

The 3 reviewed scales have several similarities and differences. All address physical, mental, and social domains, while the WHOQOL-BREF also addresses environmental areas (ie, living conditions, access to health services, transportation, leisure opportunities, finances, information, safety, and physical surroundings). The development process and conceptual framework of the WHOQOL-BREF are stronger than those for the SF-36 and the Duke Health Profile. There is a variety of evidence related to the psychometric properties of the scales, and generally there are fewer published studies regarding the Duke Health Profile. The SF-36 has some evidence of responsiveness but might suffer from floor and ceiling effects, while the WHOQOL-BREF does not appear to have floor or ceiling effects but only 1 study of its responsiveness was identified. The WHOQOL-BREF has the highest proportion of items that are individualized.

Selection of HRQOL scales requires judgment on the part of the user.99 Health-related quality of life measurement can be useful in clinical practice for assessment and intervention planning, monitoring progress, and measuring outcomes.100 Despite some of its limitations, the WHOQOL-BREF scale might be the best tool to use for adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings for all 3 of these purposes. It addresses patient concerns and its broad content areas can enable measurement of the outcomes of various medical and health promotion and prevention interventions. Further research is needed to assess its ability to detect meaningful change over time in patients with chronic conditions. Alternatively, the SF-36’s strong focus on health and evidence of responsiveness make it particularly useful in evaluating outcomes of interventions that are aimed at improving health status. The Duke Health Profile is less useful for adults with chronic conditions owing to limited evidence regarding psychometric properties and the small proportion of individualized items.

Overall, further research is needed regarding the responsiveness and other psychometric properties of HRQOL scales in various chronic condition populations, as well as regarding how HRQOL scales can be integrated into primary care practice.

Limitations

This study might be limited by the fact that only 3 HRQOL scales were reviewed; other scales might also be useful.

Conclusion

Measurement of HRQOL in adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings can support patient management and intervention and contribute to service evaluation. Scales that are based on a broad definition of health and well-being and that include individualized items are appropriate for these purposes, such as the WHOQOL-BREF. Evidence related to psychometric properties supports the use of this scale for adults with chronic conditions, although more information about responsiveness is needed.

Notes

EDITOR’S KEY POINTS

  • Measurement of health-related quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings can support patient management and intervention and contribute to service evaluation.

  • Scales that are based on a broad definition of health and well-being and that include individualized items, as the abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale does, are appropriate for these purposes.

  • Evidence related to psychometric properties supports the use of the abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale for adults with chronic conditions, although more information about its responsiveness is needed.

POINTS DE REPÈRE DU RÉDACTEUR

  • La mesure de la qualité de vie liée à la santé des adultes souffrant de problèmes chroniques en milieux de soins primaires peut appuyer la prise en charge du patient et les interventions indiquées et contribuer à l’évaluation des services.

  • Les échelles qui se fondent sur une définition large de la santé et du bien-être et qui incluent des éléments individualisés, comme le fait l’Échelle abrégée de la qualité de vie de l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé, sont appropriées à ces fins.

  • Des données probantes concernant les propriétés psychométriques de l’Échelle abrégée de la qualité de vie de l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé appuient son utilisation pour des adultes souffrant de problèmes chroniques, mais il faudrait plus de renseignements concernant sa réceptivité.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Hutchison B,
    2. Levesque JF,
    3. Strumpf E,
    4. Coyle N
    . Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. Milbank Q 2011;89(2):256-88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bullinger M,
    2. Anderson R,
    3. Cella D,
    4. Aaronson N
    . Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993;2(6):451-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Carr AJ,
    2. Gibson B,
    3. Robinson PG
    . Measuring quality of life: is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ 2001;322(7296):1240-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Moons P,
    2. Budts W,
    3. De Geest S
    . Critique on the conceptualisation of quality of life: a review and evaluation of different conceptual approaches. Int J Nurs Stud 2006;43(7):891-901. Epub 2006 May 11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Dijkers M
    . “What’s in a name?” The indiscriminate use of the “quality of life” label, and the need to bring about clarity in conceptualizations. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44(1):153-5. Epub 2006 Sep 15.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Feeny DH,
    3. Patrick DL
    . Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118(8):622-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Testa MA,
    2. Simonson DC
    . Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996;334(13):835-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wilson IB,
    2. Cleary PD
    . Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995;273(1):59-65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Salaffi F,
    2. Carotti M,
    3. Grassi W
    . Health-related quality of life in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: comparison of generic and disease-specific instruments. Clin Rheumatol 2005;24(1):29-37. Epub 2004 Jul 17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Garster NC,
    2. Palta M,
    3. Sweitzer NK,
    4. Kaplan RM,
    5. Fryback DG
    . Measuring health-related quality of life in population-based studies of coronary heart disease: comparing six generic indexes and a disease-specific proxy score. Qual Life Res 2009;18(9):1239-47. Epub 2009 Sep 16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Dempster M,
    2. Donnelly M,
    3. Fitzsimons D
    . Generic, disease-specific and individualised approaches to measuring health-related quality of life among people with heart disease—a comparative analysis. Psychol Health 2002;17(4):447-57.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.
    1. Hagen KB,
    2. Smedstad LM,
    3. Uhlig T,
    4. Kvien TK
    . The responsiveness of health status measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of disease-specific and generic instruments. J Rheumatol 1999;26(7):1474-80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Connis RT,
    3. Broadhead WE,
    4. Patrick DL,
    5. Taylor TR,
    6. Tse CK
    . Disease-specific versus generic measurement of health-related quality of life in insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Med Care 1993;31(7):629-39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hahn EA,
    2. Cella D,
    3. Chassany O,
    4. Fairclough DL,
    5. Wong GY,
    6. Hays RD,
    7. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group
    . Precision of health-related quality-of-life data compared with other clinical measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82(10):1244-54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Alonso J,
    2. Ferrer M,
    3. Gandek B,
    4. Ware JE Jr.,
    5. Aaronson NK,
    6. Mosconi P,
    7. et al
    . Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res 2004;13(2):283-98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Brown N,
    2. Melville M,
    3. Gray D,
    4. Young T,
    5. Munro J,
    6. Skene AM,
    7. et al
    . Quality of life four years after acute myocardial infarction: Short Form 36 scores compared with a normal population. Heart 1999;81(4):352-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    1. Ekman I,
    2. Fagerberg B,
    3. Lundman B
    . Health-related quality of life and sense of coherence among elderly patients with severe chronic heart failure in comparison with healthy controls. Heart Lung 2002;31(2):94-101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Haroon N,
    2. Aggarwal A,
    3. Lawrence A,
    4. Agarwal V,
    5. Misra R
    . Impact of rheumatoid arthritis on quality of life. Mod Rheumatol 2007;17(4):290-5. Epub 2007 Aug 20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Eren I,
    2. Erdi O,
    3. Sahin M
    . The effect of depression on quality of life of patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Depress Anxiety 2008;25(2):98-106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Lapointe L,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Vanasse A,
    5. Ntetu AL,
    6. Malais D
    . Multimorbidity and quality of life in primary care: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    1. Miksch A,
    2. Hermann K,
    3. Rölz A,
    4. Joos S,
    5. Szecsenyi J,
    6. Ose D,
    7. et al
    . Additional impact of concomitant hypertension and osteoarthritis on quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care in Germany—a cross-sectional survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Uutela T,
    2. Hakala M,
    3. Kautiainen H
    . Validity of the Nottingham Health Profile in a Finnish out-patient population with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42(7):841-5. Epub 2003 May 16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Núñez M,
    2. Núñez E,
    3. Segur JM,
    4. Maculé F,
    5. Sanchez A,
    6. Hernández MV,
    7. et al
    . Health-related quality of life and costs in patients with osteoarthritis on waiting list for total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15(3):258-65. Epub 2006 Sep 8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Desikan R,
    2. Mason HL,
    3. Rupp MT,
    4. Skehan M
    . Health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization by COPD patients: a comparison of three instruments. Qual Life Res 2002;11(8):739-51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Cook C,
    2. Pietrobon R,
    3. Hegedus E
    . Osteoarthritis and the impact on quality of life health indicators. Rheumatol Int 2007;27(4):315-21. Epub 2006 Nov 15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Rabenda V,
    2. Manette C,
    3. Lemmens R,
    4. Mariani AM,
    5. Struvay N,
    6. Reginster JY
    . Prevalence and impact of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis on health-related quality of life among active subjects. Aging Clin Exp Res 2007;19(1):55-60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. De Bock GH,
    2. Kaptein AA,
    3. Touw-Otten F,
    4. Mulder JD
    . Health-related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis in a family practice setting. Arthritis Care Res 1995;8(2):88-93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Fitzpatrick R,
    2. Ziebland S,
    3. Jenkinson C,
    4. Mowat A,
    5. Mowat A
    . A generic health status instrument in the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1992;31(2):87-90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Osoba D
    . Translating the science of patient-reported outcomes assessment into clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2007;(37):5-11.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Cheraghi-Sohi S,
    2. Hole AR,
    3. Mead N,
    4. McDonald R,
    5. Whalley D,
    6. Bower P,
    7. et al
    . What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Ann Fam Med 2008;6(2):107-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Little P,
    2. Everitt H,
    3. Williamson I,
    4. Warner G,
    5. Moore M,
    6. Gould C,
    7. et al
    . Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ 2001;322(7284):468-72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Wensing M,
    2. Wetzels R,
    3. Hermsen J,
    4. Baker R
    . Do elderly patients feel more enabled if they had been actively involved in primary care consultations? Patient Educ Couns 2007;68(3):265-9. Epub 2007 Aug 7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Detmar SB,
    2. Muller MJ,
    3. Schornagel JH,
    4. Wever LD,
    5. Aaronson NK
    . Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288(23):3027-34. Erratum in: JAMA 2003;289(8):987.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Meadows KA,
    2. Twidale F,
    3. Rogers D
    . Action research—a model for introducing standardized health assessment in general practice: an exploratory study. J Eval Clin Pract 1998;4(3):225-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Gutteling JJ,
    2. Darlington ASE,
    3. Janssen HL,
    4. Duivenvoorden HJ,
    5. Busschbach JJ,
    6. de Man RA
    . Effectiveness of health-related quality-of-life measurement in clinical practice: a prospective, randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic liver disease and their physicians. Qual Life Res 2008;17(2):195-205. Epub 2008 Feb 2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Dijkers MP
    . Individualization in quality of life measurement: instruments and approaches. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84(4 Suppl 2):S3-14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Andresen EM,
    2. Meyers AR
    . Health-related quality of life outcomes measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81(12 Suppl 2):S30-45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Coons SJ,
    2. Rao S,
    3. Keininger DL,
    4. Hays RD
    . A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17(1):13-35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Garratt A,
    2. Schmidt L,
    3. Mackintosh A,
    4. Fitzpatrick R
    . Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002;324(7351):1417.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Vetter TR
    . A primer on health-related quality of life in chronic pain medicine. Anesth Analg 2007;104(3):703-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Beaufait DW,
    2. Nelson EC,
    3. Landgraf JM,
    4. Hays RD,
    5. Kirk JW,
    6. Wasson JH,
    7. et al
    . COOP measures of functional status. In: Stewart MA, Tudiver F, Bass MJ, Dunn EV, Norton PG, editors. Research methods for primary care. Vol 2. Tools for primary care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1992. p. 151-67.
  42. 42.↵
    1. Hunt SM,
    2. McEwan J
    . The development of a subjective health indicator. Sociol Health Illn 1980;2(3):231-46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Gilmour H,
    2. Park J
    . Dependency, chronic conditions and pain in seniors. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2005. Available from: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-s/2005000/pdf/9087-eng.pdf. Accessed 2016 Jun 22.
  44. 44.↵
    1. Health Council of Canada
    . Why health care renewal matters: learning from Canadians with chronic health conditions. Toronto, ON: Health Council of Canada; 2007. Available from: www.healthcouncilcanada.ca/tree/2.20-Outcomes2FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2016 Jun 22.
  45. 45.↵
    1. McHorney CA,
    2. Tarlov AR
    . Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995;4(4):293-307.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Lohr KN,
    2. Aaronson NK,
    3. Alonso J,
    4. Burnam MA,
    5. Patrick DL,
    6. Perrin EB,
    7. et al
    . Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996;18(5):979-92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . The Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva, Switz: World Health Organization; 1986. Available from: www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en/. Accessed 2016 Jun 22.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Ware JE Jr.
    . Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84(4 Suppl 2):S43-51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Renwick R,
    2. Friefeld S
    . Quality of life and rehabilitation. In: Renwick R, Brown I, Nagler M, editors. Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation: conceptual approaches, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. p. 26-36.
  50. 50.↵
    1. Hunt SM,
    2. McKenna SP,
    3. McEwen J,
    4. Backett EM,
    5. Williams J,
    6. Papp E
    . A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980;34(4):281-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Ware JE Jr.,
    2. Sherbourne CD
    . The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473-83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Gehlbach SH,
    3. Wagner EH,
    4. James SA,
    5. Clapp NE,
    6. Muhlbaier LH
    . The Duke-UNC Health Profile: an adult health status instrument for primary care. Med Care 1981;19(8):806-28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Post MW,
    2. de Witte LP,
    3. Schrijvers AJ
    . Quality of life and the ICIDH: towards an integrated conceptual model for rehabilitation outcomes research. Clin Rehabil 1999;13(1):5-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Bishop M
    . Quality of life and psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and disability: preliminary analysis of a conceptual and theoretical synthesis. Rehabil Couns Bull 2005;48(4):219-31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse
    . WHOQOL user manual. Geneva, Switz: World Health Organization; 1998. Available from: www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/who_qol_user_manual_98.pdf. Accessed 2016 Jun 22.
  56. 56.↵
    1. Ueda S,
    2. Okawa Y
    . The subjective dimension of functioning and disability: what is it and what is it for? Disabil Rehabil 2003;25(11–12):596-601.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switz: World Health Organization; 2002. Available from: www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf. Accessed 2016 Jun 22.
  58. 58.↵
    1. Hays RD,
    2. Hahn H,
    3. Marshall G
    . Use of the SF-36 and other health-related quality of life measures to assess persons with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83(12 Suppl 2):S4-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. WHOQOL Group
    . Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998;28(3):551-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Curtis JR,
    2. Patrick DL
    . The assessment of health status among patients with COPD. Eur Respir J Suppl 2003;41:36s-45s.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.
    1. Haywood KL,
    2. Garratt AM,
    3. Fitzpatrick R
    . Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res 2005;14(7):1651-68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.
    1. Pollard B,
    2. Johnston M,
    3. Dixon D
    . Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Wiklund I
    . The Nottingham Health Profile—a measure of health-related quality of life. Scand J Prim Health Care Suppl 1990;1:15-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Broadhead WE,
    3. Tse CK
    . Development of the 17-item Duke Health Profile. Fam Pract 1991;8(4):396-401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Hunt SM,
    2. McEwen J
    . The development of a subjective health indicator. Sociol Health Illn 1980;2(3):231-46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Skevington SM,
    2. Lotfy M,
    3. O’Connell KA,
    4. WHOQOL Group
    . The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. Qual Life Res 2004;13(2):299-310.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    1. Taylor WJ,
    2. Myers J,
    3. Simpson RT,
    4. McPherson KM,
    5. Weatherall M
    . Quality of life of people with rheumatoid arthritis as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF): score distributions and psychometric properties. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51(3):350-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.
    1. Cruz LN,
    2. Camey SA,
    3. Fleck MP,
    4. Polanczyk CA
    . World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Brief and Short Form-36 in patients with coronary artery disease: do they measure similar quality of life concepts? Psychol Health Med 2009;14(5):619-28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.
    1. Liang WM,
    2. Chen JJ,
    3. Chang CH,
    4. Chen HW,
    5. Chen SL,
    6. Hang LW,
    7. et al
    . An empirical comparison of the WHOQOL-BREF and the SGRQ among patients with COPD. Qual Life Res 2008;17(5):793-800. Epub 2008 May 24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.
    1. Norekvål TM,
    2. Wahl AK,
    3. Fridlund B,
    4. Nordrehaug J,
    5. Wentzel-Larsen T,
    6. Hanestad BR
    . Quality of life in female myocardial infarction survivors: a comparative study with a randomly selected general female population cohort. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.
    1. Kosinski M,
    2. Keller SD,
    3. Hatoum HT,
    4. Kong SX,
    5. Ware JE Jr.
    . The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care 1999;37(5 Suppl):MS10-22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  72. 72.
    1. McHorney CA,
    2. Ware JE Jr.,
    3. Raczek AE
    . The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31(3):247-63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.
    1. Wolinsky FD,
    2. Wyrwich KW,
    3. Nienaber NA,
    4. Tierney WM
    . Generic versus disease-specific health status measures. An example using coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure patients. Eval Health Prof 1998;21(2):216-43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. 74.
    1. Kosinski M,
    2. Keller SD,
    3. Ware JE Jr.,
    4. Hatoum HT,
    5. Kong SX
    . The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: relative validity of scales in relation to clinical measures of arthritis severity. Med Care 1999;37(5 Suppl):MS23-39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.
    1. Linde L,
    2. Sørensen J,
    3. Østergaard M,
    4. Hørslev-Petersen K,
    5. Hetland ML
    . Health-related quality of life: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, EQ-15D, EQ-5D, RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2008;35(8):1528-37. Epub 2008 May 15. Erratum in: J Rheumatol 2008;35(8):1688.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.
    1. Ruta DA,
    2. Hurst NP,
    3. Kind P,
    4. Hunter M,
    5. Stubbings A
    . Measuring health status in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36). Br J Rheumatol 1998;37(4):425-36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.
    1. Stavem K,
    2. Boe J,
    3. Erikssen J
    . Health status, dyspnea, lung function and exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3(10):920-6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. 78.
    1. Ten Klooster PM,
    2. Vonkeman HE,
    3. Taal E,
    4. Siemons L,
    5. Hendriks L,
    6. de Jong AJL,
    7. et al
    . Performance of the Dutch SF-36 version 2 as a measure of health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.
    1. Lalonde L,
    2. Clarke AE,
    3. Joseph L,
    4. Mackenzie T,
    5. Grover SA
    . Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Qual Life Res 1999;8(5):399-409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.
    1. Parshall MB,
    2. Mapel DW,
    3. Rice L,
    4. Williams A,
    5. O’Reilly J
    . Predictive validity of Short-Form Health Survey (36 items) scales for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. Heart Lung 2008;37(5):356-65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.
    1. Prieto L,
    2. Alonso J,
    3. Ferrer M,
    4. Antó JM
    . Are results of the SF-36 Health Survey and the Nottingham Health Profile similar? A comparison in COPD patients. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50(4):463-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.
    1. Salaffi F,
    2. Carotti M,
    3. Stancati A,
    4. Grassi W
    . Health-related quality of life in older adults with symptomatic hip and knee osteoarthritis: a comparison with matched healthy controls. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005;17(4):255-63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.
    1. Whitfield K,
    2. Buchbinder R,
    3. Segal L,
    4. Osborne RH
    . Parsimonious and efficient assessment of health-related quality of life in osteoarthritis research: validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.
    1. Woodcock AJ,
    2. Julious SA,
    3. Kinmonth AL,
    4. Campbell MJ,
    5. Diabetes Care From Diagnosis Group
    . Problems with the performance of the SF-36 among people with type 2 diabetes in general practice. Qual Life Res 2001;10(8):661-70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.
    1. McHorney CA
    . Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 Health Survey. Gerontologist 1996;36(5):571-83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Broadhead WE,
    3. Tse CK
    . The Duke Health Profile. A 17-item measure of health and dysfunction. Med Care 1990;28(11):1056-72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Broadhead WE,
    3. Tse CK
    . Quality of life and functional health of primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45(11):1303-13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Broadhead WE,
    3. Tse CK
    . Health status and severity of illness as predictors of outcomes in primary care. Med Care 1995;33(1):53-66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.
    1. Hirsch A,
    2. Bartholomae C,
    3. Volmer T
    . Dimensions of quality of life in people with non-insulin-dependent diabetes. Qual Life Res 2000;9(2):207-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.
    1. Russell AS,
    2. Conner-Spady B,
    3. Mintz A,
    4. Maksymowych WP
    . The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving infliximab. J Rheumatol 2003;30(5):941-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. 91.
    1. Ahroni JH,
    2. Boyko EJ
    . Responsiveness of the SF-36 among veterans with diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complications 2000;14(1):31-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.
    1. Harper R,
    2. Brazier JE,
    3. Waterhouse JC,
    4. Walters SJ,
    5. Jones NM,
    6. Howard P
    . Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax 1997;52(10):879-87.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  93. 93.
    1. Hevey D,
    2. McGee HM,
    3. Horgan J
    . Responsiveness of health-related quality of life outcome measures in cardiac rehabilitation: comparison of cardiac rehabilitation outcome measures. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004;72(6):1175-80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.
    1. Kosinski M,
    2. Zhao SZ,
    3. Dedhiya S,
    4. Osterhaus JT,
    5. Ware JE Jr.
    . Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43(7):1478-87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.
    1. Madeley NJ,
    2. Wing KJ,
    3. Topliss C,
    4. Penner MJ,
    5. Glazebrook MA,
    6. Younger AS
    . Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 2012;33(1):57-63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.
    1. Veehof MM,
    2. ten Klooster PM,
    3. Taal E,
    4. van Riel PL,
    5. van de Laar MA
    . Comparison of internal and external responsiveness of the generic Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) with disease-specific measures in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2008;35(4):610-7. Epub 2008 Mar 1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.
    . User’s guide for Duke health measures. Durham, NC: Department of Community Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center; 2002.
  98. 98.↵
    1. Dempster M,
    2. Bradley J,
    3. Wallace E,
    4. McCoy P
    . Measuring quality of life in cardiac rehabilitation: comparing the Short Form 36 and the Nottingham Health Profile. Coronary Health Care 1997;1(4):211-7.
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    1. Fitzpatrick R,
    2. Bowling A,
    3. Gibbons E,
    4. Haywood K,
    5. Jenkinson C,
    6. Mackintosh A,
    7. et al
    . A structured review of patient-reported measures in relation to selected chronic conditions, perceptions of quality of care and carer impact. Oxford, UK: National Centre for Health Outcomes Development; 2006.
  100. 100.↵
    1. Ethgen O,
    2. Kahler KH,
    3. Kong SX,
    4. Reginster JY,
    5. Wolfe F
    . The effect of health related quality of life on reported use of health care resources in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal analysis. J Rheumatol 2002;29(6):1147-55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Respond to this article
Measuring health-related quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings
Carri Hand
Canadian Family Physician Jul 2016, 62 (7) e375-e383;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Subjects