Quality of Life Research

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 221–226 | Cite as

Interpretation of quality of life changes

  • E. Lydick
  • R. S. Epstein
Commentary

Abstract

The clinical significance of quality of life changes has little to do with the QOL as a measure, but is rather a reflection on the novelty of the measures and researcher's inexperience in their use. This article discusses possible ways of evaluating quality of life measures in terms of patient-clinician interactions and how the clinician can assess the importance of these changes of QOL in terms of treatment and management of disease.

Key words

Clinical significance epidemiological studies outcomes research quality of life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Testa MA. Interpreting quality-of-life clinical trial data for use in the clinical practice of antihypertensive therapy. J Hypertens 1987; 5(Suppl 1): S9-S13.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware JEJr, Manning WGJr, Duan N, Wells KB, Newhouse JP. Health status and the use of outpatient mental health services. Am Psychol 1984; 39: 1090–1100.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salsburg DS, Turner RS. Defining clinical meaningful units of change for health outcome research. Quality of Life Newsletter 1992; 3: 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown & Co, 1985: 181–182.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991; 59: 12–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trial 1989; 10: 407–415.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gormley GJ, Stoner E, Bruskewitz RC, et al. The effect of finasteride in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1185–1191.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Girman CJ, Panser LA, Chute CG, et al. Natural history of prostatism: Urinary flow rates in a community-based study. J Urology (in press).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S189.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Testa MA, Lenderking WR. Interpreting pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life clinical trial data for use in therapeutics. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 2: 107–117.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brook RH, Ware JEJr, Rogers WH, et al. Does free care improve adults' health? Results from a randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1426–1434.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleeland CS. Assessment of pain in cancer measurement issues. Adv Pain Res Ther 1990; 16: 47–55.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spitz PW, Fries JF. The present and future comprehensive outcome measures for rheumatic diseases. Clin Rheumatol 1987; 6(Suppl 2): 105–11.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marder SR, Mintz J, VanPutten R, Lebell M, Wirshing WC, Johnston-Cronk K. Early prediction of relapse in schizophrenia: an application of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) methods. Psychopharmacol Bull 1991; 27: 79–82.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinical important changes. Health Svcs Res 1984; 19: 275–289.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 171–178.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Fitzpatrick R, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care. II. Design, analysis, and interpretation. Br Med J 1992; 305: 1145–1148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Lydick
    • 1
  • R. S. Epstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Merck Research LaboratoriesPennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations