Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 45–49 | Cite as

Quality of life 1

Perspectives
  • H. D. Banta
Reviews

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.

Keywords

Cost-benefit analysis Drug therapy Erythropoetin Methods Quality of life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergsma J, Engel G. Quality of life: does measurement help? Health Policy 1988; 10:267–79.Google Scholar
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11.
    Bossuyt PMM, Lubsen J. Introduction: assessing quality of life assessment. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:151.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patrick DL, Erickson P. What constitutes quality of life? Concepts and dimensions. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:152–8.Google Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 15.
    McEwen J. Nottingham Health Profile: application in clinical care. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:164–6.Google Scholar
  16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 23.
    Van Eimeren W, Horisberger B, eds. Socioeconomic evaluation of drug therapy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salek MS, Vandenburg MJ. Measuring the quality of life in angina pectoris. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:186–91.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fletcher AE, Bulpitt CJ. Assessment of quality of life in cardiovascular therapy. Br J Clin Pharm 1986;21:173S-81S.Google Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 31.
    Morgan GJ. Quality of life assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: an overview. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:192–4.Google Scholar
  32. 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. 33.
    Spilker B, ed. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. 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. 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. 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. 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. 38.
    Jones PW. Quality of life measurement in chronic lung disease. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:181–3.Google Scholar
  39. 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. 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. 41.
    Van Dam FSAM, Aaronson NK. Quality of life and cancer treatment. J Drug Ther Res 1988;13:173–5.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Office of Technology Assessment. A review of selected vaccine and immunization policies. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. 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. 44.
    Dao TD. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical intervention. Washington: Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association, 1984.Google Scholar
  45. 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. 46.
    Teeling Smith G, ed. Measuring health: a practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987.Google Scholar
  48. 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. 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. 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. 51.
    Doolittle R. Biotechnology — the enormous cost of success. [Editorial]. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1360–2.Google Scholar
  52. 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

Copyright information

© Periodicals Service Company 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. D. Banta
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Medical TechnologyNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (CMT/TNO)AK Leidenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations