Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Postgraduate Medical Journal logoLink to Postgraduate Medical Journal
. 1997 Oct;73(864):613–616. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.73.864.613

Quality of life as an outcome measure.

C J Bulpitt 1
PMCID: PMC2431483  PMID: 9497968

Abstract

It is important to identify unknown and unquantified benefits and risks of therapeutic intervention that are reflected in the quality of life. This is especially important when the benefit : risk analysis is not clearly in favour of treatment. Quality of life is defined and target areas identified. The steps in the measurements of quality of life are discussed, including the validity, repeatability and sensitivity to change of existing methods; their acceptability, analytical problems; the presentation of the results; and the use of the results in economic evaluations. The Sickness Impact Profile, the Nottingham Health Profile and the Quality of Well-Being scale are compared for the assessment of patients with angina. The advantages and disadvantages of each is discussed together with the results from a double-blind trial of treatment in angina where the Sickness Impact Profile was employed. Generic and disease-specific instruments are compared. The advantages and disadvantages of economic evaluations employing quality-of-life outcomes are discussed. Methods should be employed that withstand rigorous scientific evaluation. Both a health profile and a summary statistic such as a Health Status Index should be measured. If different treatments are to be compared, a randomised controlled trial should be employed. If the more expensive treatment is likely to be superior then costs should be collected and a cost-utility analysis performed.

Full text

PDF
613

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bergner M., Bobbitt R. A., Carter W. B., Gilson B. S. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):787–805. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Croog S. H., Levine S., Testa M. A., Brown B., Bulpitt C. J., Jenkins C. D., Klerman G. L., Williams G. H. The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life. N Engl J Med. 1986 Jun 26;314(26):1657–1664. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198606263142602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Feinstein A. R., Fisher M. B., Pigeon J. G. Changes in dyspnea-fatigue ratings as indicators of quality of life in the treatment of congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1989 Jul 1;64(1):50–55. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(89)90652-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fletcher A. E., Bulpitt C. J., Chase D. M., Collins W. C., Furberg C. D., Goggin T. K., Hewett A. J., Neiss A. M. Quality of life with three antihypertensive treatments. Cilazapril, atenolol, nifedipine. Hypertension. 1992 Jun;19(6 Pt 1):499–507. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.19.6.499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fletcher A. Pressure to treat and pressure to cost: a review of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Hypertens. 1991 Mar;9(3):193–198. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199103000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hunt S. M., McKenna S. P., McEwen J., Backett E. M., Williams J., Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1980 Dec;34(4):281–286. doi: 10.1136/jech.34.4.281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Johannesson M., Jönsson B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hypertension treatment--a review of methodological issues. Health Policy. 1991 Sep;19(1):55–77. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90074-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaplan R. M., Bush J. W., Berry C. C. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976 Winter;11(4):478–507. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kubo S. H., Gollub S., Bourge R., Rahko P., Cobb F., Jessup M., Brozena S., Brodsky M., Kirlin P., Shanes J. Beneficial effects of pimobendan on exercise tolerance and quality of life in patients with heart failure. Results of a multicenter trial. The Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group. Circulation. 1992 Mar;85(3):942–949. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.85.3.942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lipkin D. P., Poole-Wilson P. A. Treatment of chronic heart failure: a review of recent drug trials. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 Oct 12;291(6501):993–996. doi: 10.1136/bmj.291.6501.993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Parr G., Darekar B., Fletcher A., Bulpitt C. J. Joint pain and quality of life; results of a randomised trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989 Feb;27(2):235–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1989.tb05356.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Visser M. C., Fletcher A. E., Parr G., Simpson A., Bulpitt C. J. 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. 1994 Feb;47(2):157–163. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90020-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Weinberger M., Kirkman M. S., Samsa G. P., Cowper P. A., Shortliffe E. A., Simel D. L., Feussner J. R. The relationship between glycemic control and health-related quality of life in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Med Care. 1994 Dec;32(12):1173–1181. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199412000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Postgraduate Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES