Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of life 1

Perspectives

  • Reviews
  • Published:
Pharmacy World and Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessing the value of health care interventions is more and more a concern of governments, clinicians, health insurance companies, policy makers, and the general public. One dimension of the outcomes of such interventions that has received relatively little attention until recently is quality of life. However, during the last decade, measuring quality of life has become more frequent. Methodologies have also developed rapidly. At the same time, methodological problems continue to be troubling. In part, this explains the relative lack of use of validated measures of quality of life in clinical trials. In the future, measuring quality of life will certainly become more frequent. It may even be demanded by policy making bodies. Increasingly, too, economic costs will be part of such studies. This requires considering both clinical and economic data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bergsma J, Engel G. Quality of life: does measurement help? Health Policy 1988; 10:267–79.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bonsel G. Kwaliteit van leven meting en medical technology assessment [Quality of life measurement and medical technology assessment]. Ned Tijdschr Psychologie 1991;46:180–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. O'Brien B, Buxton M, Ferguson B. Measuring the effectiveness of heart transplant programmes: quality of life data and their relationship to survival analysis. J Chron Dis 1987;40:137S-53S.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pocock S. A perspective on the role of quality-of-life assessment in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:257S-65S.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Williams A. The importance of quality of life in policy decisions at three levels. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:170–2.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hunt S. Measuring health in clinical care and clinical trials. In: Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Teeling Smith G. Introduction. In: Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Feeny D, Labelle R, Torrance G. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bossuyt PMM, Lubsen J. Introduction: assessing quality of life assessment. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:151.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Patrick DL, Erickson P. What constitutes quality of life? Concepts and dimensions. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:152–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Walker SR. Quality of life — principles and methodology. In: Van Eimeren W, Horisberger B, eds. Socioeconomic evaluation of drug therapy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988:151–65.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erickson P, Patrick DL. Guidelines for selecting quality of life assessment: methodological and practical considerations. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:159–63.

    Google Scholar 

  15. McEwen J. Nottingham Health Profile: application in clinical care. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:164–6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sullivan M. The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP): an instrument for overall health assessment; a basic evaluation. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:167–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fries J. The hierarchy of quality-of-life assessment, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and issues mandating development of a toxicity index. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:106S-117S.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Essink Bot M, Rutten-Van Molken M. Het meten van gezondheid [The measurement of health]. Maastricht: Institute of Medical Technology Assessment, 1991. (IMTA Report MGZ 91-04).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stevens J, Poston J, Walker S. Assessment of treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. In: Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:211–23.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hillner B, Smith T. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1991;324:160–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bennett K, Torrance G, Tugwell P. Methodological challenges in the development of utility measures of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:118S-28S.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Patterson M. Assessment of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. In: Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:157–89.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van Eimeren W, Horisberger B, eds. Socioeconomic evaluation of drug therapy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Salek MS, Vandenburg MJ. Measuring the quality of life in angina pectoris. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:186–91.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fletcher AE, Bulpitt CJ. Assessment of quality of life in cardiovascular therapy. Br J Clin Pharm 1986;21:173S-81S.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wenger N, Mattson M, Furburg C, Elinson J, eds. The assessment of quality of life in cardiovascular therapies. New York: Le Jacq Publishers, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Aaronson N, Beckman J, Bernheim J, Zittoun R, eds. The quality of life of cancer patients. New York: Raven Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Van Knippenberg F, Haes J. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: psychometric properties of instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:1043–53.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Welburn P, Walker S. Assessment of quality of life in Parkinson's disease. In: Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lakke JPWF, Brouwer WH, Broersma TTW. Measuring the quality of life in neurological degenerative diseases. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:176–80.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Morgan GJ. Quality of life assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: an overview. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:192–4.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wiklund I, Karlberg J. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials, selecting quality of life measures. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:204S-16S.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Spilker B, ed. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Guyatt G, Vandluyzen Van Zanten S, Feeny D, Patrick D. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. Can Med Assoc J 1989;140:1441–8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Croog SH, Levine S, Testa MA, Brown B, Bulpitt CJ, Jankins D, et al. The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1657–64.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Amery A, Fagard R, Staessen J, Van Hoof R. Measuring the quality of life in hypertension; a critical note. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:184–5.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bombardier C, Ware J, Russel IJ, Larson M, Chalmers A, Read JL. Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a clinical trial. JAMA 1986;81:565–78.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jones PW. Quality of life measurement in chronic lung disease. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:181–3.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schipper H, Clinch J. Assessment of treatment in cancer. In: Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:109–55.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, Levitt M. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index — Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:472–83.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Van Dam FSAM, Aaronson NK. Quality of life and cancer treatment. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:173–5.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Office of Technology Assessment. A review of selected vaccine and immunization policies. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Haan G, Van Doorslaer E. Onderzoek naar kosten-effectiviteit van geneesmiddelen [Research on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical treatments]. Pharm Weekbl 1991;126:254–62.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dao TD. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical intervention. Washington: Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Luce BR. Cost-effectiveness study of Pharmaceuticals: methodological considerations. In: Van Eimeren W, Horisberger B, eds. Socioeconomic evaluation of drug therapy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988:87–94.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Weeks J, Tierney M. Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 1991;325:81–6.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Evans R, Rader B, Mannenen D, Cooperative Multicenter EPO Clinical Trial Group. The quality of life of hemodialysis recipients treated with recombinant human erythropoietin. JAMA 1990;263:825–30.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D, Canadian Erythropoetin Group. The use of generic and specific quality-of-life measures in hemodialysis patients treatment with erythropoietin. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:168S-79S.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Doolittle R. Biotechnology — the enormous cost of success. [Editorial]. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1360–2.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group. Association between recombinant human erythropoietin and quality of life and exercise capacity of patients receiving haemodialysis. BMJ 1990;300:573–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Medical Technology, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (CMT/TNO), P.O. Box 430, 2300, AK Leiden, the Netherlands

    H. D. Banta

Authors
  1. H. D. Banta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Banta, H.D. Quality of life 1. Pharm World Sci 15, 45–49 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01874082

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01874082

Keywords

Search

Navigation