Skip to main content

Health related quality of life outcome instruments

Abstract

Health is the most significant part of quality of life. Generally, quality of life outcome instruments used in healthcare confine their attention to health related areas, assessing health related quality of life. The present study aims to describe some commonly used health profile instruments such as the generic measures SF-36, Nottingham Health Profile and Sickness Impact Profile; and the preference-based measures EuroQol and SF-6D. The latter preference-based instruments are increasingly used in outcome studies and obtained data might be used for calculating quality-adjusted life-years.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. An SF-36 licence can be obtained at http://www.sf-36.org (accessed 2 October 2005) and a reference kit can be ordered at http://www.qualitymetric.com/products/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=468&categoryid=1 (accessed 2 October 2005).

  2. SF-36 is currently available in Afrikaans, Armenian, Bulgarian, Chinese for Hong Kong, Chinese for Singapore, Chinese for Taiwan, Chinese for the USA, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Dutch for Belgium, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for Hong Kong, English for Malaysia, English for New Zealand, English for the Philippines, English for Singapore, English for South Africa, English for Taiwan, English for the UK, Estonian, Finnish, French, French for Belgium, French for Canada, French for Switzerland, German, German for Austria, German for Switzerland, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Iranian, Italian, Italian for Switzerland, Japanese, Japanese for the USA, Kiswahili, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malay for Malaysia, Malay for Singapore, Malayalam, Marathi, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese for Brazil, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Spanish for Argentina, Spanish for Chile, Spanish for Colombia, Spanish for Costa Rica, Spanish for Guatemala, Spanish for Honduras, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for Peru, Spanish for Puerto Rico, Spanish for the USA, Spanish for Uruguay, Spanish for Venezuela, Swedish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese for the USA. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

  3. SF-12 is currently available in Afrikaans, Bulgarian, Chinese for Hong Kong, Chinese for Singapore, Chinese for Taiwan, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Dutch for Belgium, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for Hong Kong, English for India, English for New Zealand, English for South Africa, English for Taiwan, English for the UK, Estonian, Finnish, French, French for Belgium, French for Canada, French for Switzerland, German, German for Austria, German for Switzerland, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Italian for Switzerland, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malay for Malaysia, Malay for Singapore, Malayalam, Marathi, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese for Brazil, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Spanish for Argentina, Spanish for Chile, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for Puerto Rico, Spanish for the USA, Swedish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Xhosa and Zulu. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

  4. http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf12.shtml, accessed 2 October 2005.

  5. The instrument can be ordered from Medical Outcomes Trust, a not for profit organisation, at http://www.outcomes-trust.org/instruments/SIPpack.htm (accessed 25 September 2005). The package includes a copy of the instrument including royalty-free permission to use and reproduce and user manual.

  6. Sickness Impact Profile is currently available in Arabic, Chinese for Hong-Kong, Danish, Dutch, Dutch for Belgium, English for Mexico, English for the UK, Finnish, French, French for Belgium, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for the USA (Chicano Spanish for the Southwest USA), Swedish, Tamil and Thai. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

  7. Address for contact: Dr. Stephen McKenna, Director of Research, Galen Research, Enterprise House, Manchester Science Park, Lloyd Street North, Manchester M15 6SE, UK. Tel.: +44-161-2264446; Fax: +44-161-2264478; E-mail: smckenna@galen-research.com. Source: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s110.x, accessed 4 October 2005.

  8. Nottingham Health Profile is currently available in Arabic, Danish, Dutch, English for the USA, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese for Brazil, Spanish and Swedish. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

  9. http://www.euroqol.org, accessed 2 October 2005.

  10. EQ-5D is currently available in Afrikaans (for South Africa), Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese (for China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch (for Belgium, the Netherlands), English (for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK (includes Ireland), Singapore, South Africa, USA), Estonian, Finnish, French (for Belgium, France, Canada, Switzerland), German (for Germany, Austria, Switzerland), Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malay (for Malaysia), Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (for Brazil, Portugal), Romanian, Russian (for Israel, Russia), Slovakian, Spanish (for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela), Slovenian, Swedish, Thai and Turkish. Source: http://www.euroqol.org/web/users/language_a.php/, accessed 2 October 2005.

  11. http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/projects/sf-6d.html (accessed 14 October 2005). The SF-6D is copyrighted and is available on a license basis. A license is available free of charge for all non-commercial applications including work funded by research councils, Government agencies and charities. For commercial applications there will be a per study license (e.g. clinical trial), though an open license for a fixed period is available. The SF-6D is being used in software available from Quality Metric (www.qualitymetric.com).

  12. http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm, accessed 12 October 2005.

References

  1. Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, Brownson CA (1999) Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:877–884

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS (1981) The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brazier JE, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP et al (1996) Using the SF-36 and EuroQol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res 5:195–204

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K (1998) Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1115–1128

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13:873–884

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F (eds) (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Evidence from the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands

  9. Burchiel KJ, Anderson VC, Wilson BJ, Denison DB, Olson KA, Shatin D, Young RF, North RB (1995) Prognostic factors of spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain. Neurosurgery 36:1101–1111

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Burstrom B, Fredlund P (2001) Self rated health: is it as good a predictor of subsequent mortality among adults in lower as well as in higher social classes? J Epidemiol Community Health 55:836–840

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001a) Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 10:621–635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001b) Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy 55:51–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2003) The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97. Health Econ 12:637–654

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2005) A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy, Oct 6, Epub ahead of print, PMID: 16214258

  15. Chung YL, Mitchell HL, Houssien DA, Al-Mahrouki H, Carr AJ, Scott DL (2001) A comparative study of outcome in myositis and other musculoskeletal disorders assessed using the Nottingham Health Profile. Clin Exp Rheumatol 19:447–450

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cockerill W, Lunt M, Silman AJ, Cooper C, Lips P, Bhalla AK, Cannata JB, Eastell R, Felsenberg D, Gennari C, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Kiss C, Masaryk P, Naves M, Poor G, Raspe H, Reid DM, Reeve J, Stepan J, Todd C, Woolf AD, O’Neill TW (2004) Health-related quality of life and radiographic vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:113–119

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD (2000) A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 17:13–35

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cortet B, Houvenagel E, Puisieux F, Roches E, Garnier P, Delcambre B (1999a) Spinal curvatures and quality of life in women with vertebral fractures secondary to osteoporosis. Spine 24:1921–1925

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cortet B, Cotten A, Boutry N, Flipo RM, Duquesnoy B, Chastanet P, Delcambre B (1999b) Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: an open prospective study. J Rheumatol 26:2222–2228

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dolan P (1996) Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy 38:189–203

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolan PD (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P (1998) Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke 29:63–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dursun N, Dursun E, Yalcin S (2001) Comparison of alendronate, calcitonin and calcium treatments in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Int J Clin Pract 55:505–509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ettinger B, Block JE, Smith R, Cummings SR, Harris ST, Genant HK (1988) An examination of the association between vertebral deformities, physical disabilities and psychosocial problems. Maturitas 10:283–296

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R (2002) Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures [see comment]. Br Med J 324:1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gijsen R, Hoeymans N, Schellevis FG, Ruwaard D, Satariano WA, van den Bos GA (2001) Causes and consequences of comorbidity: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 54:661–674

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MG, Vale LD, Campbell MK, Scott NW, Knight DJ, Wardlaw D (2004a) Low back pain: influence of early MR imaging or CT on treatment and outcome—multicenter randomized trial. Radiology 231:343–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MG, Vale L, Scott NW, Campbell MK, Wardlaw D, Knight D, McIntosh E, Porter RW (2004b) Does early imaging influence management and improve outcome in patients with low back pain? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 8(iii):1–131

    Google Scholar 

  29. Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield M (1997) Autogenous iliac crest bone graft: complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 339:76–81

    Google Scholar 

  30. Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG (2005) The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 58:595–602

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gyrd-Hansen D (2005) Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics 23:423–432

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hammill JM, Cook TM, Rosecrance JC (1996) Effectiveness of a physical therapy regimen in the treatment of tension-type headache. Headache 36:149–153

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hidding A, Van der Linden S, Boers M, Gielen X, De Witte L, Kester A, Dijkmans B, Moolenburgh D (1993) Is group physical therapy superior to individualized therapy in ankylosing spondylitis? A randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res 6:117–125

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hidding A, Van der Linden S, Gielen X, De Witte L, Dijkmans B, Moolenburgh D (1994) Continuation of group physical therapy is necessary in ankylosing spondylitis. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res 7:90–96

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J et al (1981) The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 15:221–229

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, Lambert M, Lochhead A, Brown H (1994) Validity of Euroqol—a generic health status instrument—in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Br J Rheumatol 33:655–662

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A (1997) Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 36:551–559

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jansson KA, Németh G, Granath F, Jonsson B, Blomqvist P (2005) Health-related quality of life in patients before and after surgery for a herniated lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:959–964

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson JA, Coons SJ (1998) Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 7:155–166

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Karppinen J, Ohinmaa A, Malmivaara A, Kurunlahti M, Kyllonen E, Pienimaki T, Nieminen P, Tervonen O, Vanharanta H (2001) Cost effectiveness of periradicular infiltration for sciatica: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Spine 26:2587–2595

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kendrick D, Fielding K, Bentley E, Kerslake R, Miller P, Pringle M (2001) Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 322(7283):400–405

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Legroux-Gerot I, Lormeau C, Boutry N, Cotten A, Duquesnoy B, Cortet B (2004) Long-term follow-up of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Clin Rheumatol 23:310–317

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Levy HI, Hanscom B, Boden SD (2002) Three-question depression screener used for lumbar disc herniations and spinal stenosis [see comment]. Spine 27:1232–1237

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lofgren H, Johansen F, Skogar O, Levander B (2003) Reduced pain after surgery for cervical disc protrusion/stenosis: a 2 year clinical follow-up. Disabil Rehabil 25:1033–1043

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lurie J (2000) A review of generic health status measures in patients with low back pain. Spine 25:3125–3129

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN (2005) Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 14:1321–1332

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE (1993) 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 31:247–263

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD (1994) The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Meyers AR, Andresen EM (2000) Enabling our instruments: accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S5–S9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J (2003) A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 12:975–981

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF, Bogdanffy GM, Sonntag VKH, Hurlbert RJ (1996) Prospective outcome evaluation of spinal cord stimulation in patients with intractable leg pain. Spine 21:1344–1351

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Olson SL, O’Connor DP, Birmingham G, Broman P, Herrera L (2000) Tender point sensitivity, range of motion, and perceived disability in subjects with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30:13–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Papaioannou A, Adachi JD, Winegard K, Ferko N, Parkinson W, Cook RJ, Webber C, McCartney N (2003) Efficacy of home-based exercise for improving quality of life among elderly women with symptomatic osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 14:677–682

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Persson LCG, Carlsson CA, Carlsson JY, Sherk HH (1997) Long-lasting cervical radicular pain managed with surgery, physiotherapy, or a cervical collar: a prospective, randomized study. Spine 22:751–758

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Petrou S, Hockley C (2005) An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 14:1169–1189

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rainville J, Hartigan C, Jouve C, Martinez E (2004) The influence of intense exercise-based physical therapy program on back pain anticipated before and induced by physical activities. Spine J 4:176–183

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Resnik L, Dobrzykowski E (2003) Guide to outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain syndromes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33:307–316; discussion 317–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Resnik L, Dobrykowski E (2005) Outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain. Orthop Nurs 24:14–24

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 330:1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Saraph V, Lerch C, Walochnik N, Bach CM, Krismer M, Wimmer C (2004) Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 13:425–431

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. van Schoor NM, Smit JH, Twisk JW, Lips P (2005) Impact of vertebral deformities, osteoarthritis, and other chronic diseases on quality of life: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 16:749–756

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost–utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J April 21, Epub ahead of print, PMID: 15843969

  63. Spincemaille GH, Beersen N, Dekkers MA, Theuvenet PJ (2004) Neuropathic limb pain and spinal cord stimulation: results of the Dutch prospective study. Neuromodulation 7:184–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stromqvist B (2002) Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73:34–39

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stromqvist B, Jonsson B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Larsson BE, Lind B (2001) The Swedish National Register for lumbar spine surgery: Swedish Society for Spinal Surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 72:99–106

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Stucki G, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1994) Contribution of neuromuscular impairment to physical functional status in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Rheumatol 21:1338–1343

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Thevenon A, Bonan I, Catanzariti JF, Duquesnoy B (1994) Quality of life and vertebral osteoporosis [French]. Ann Readapt Med Phys 37:89–94

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tosteson AN (2000) Preference-based health outcome measures in low back pain. Spine 25:3161–3166

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2003) What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:4

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2005) Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14:1523–1532

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 health survey update. Spine 25:3130–3139

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ware JE Jr (2001) Erratum: SF-36 health survey update Spine (2000) 25 (3130–3139)). 26:2062

  74. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Yoh K, Tanaka K, Ishikawa A, Ishibashi T, Uchino Y, Sato Y, Tobinaga M, Hasegawa N, Kamae S, Yoshizawa M (2005) Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in Japanese osteoporotic patients and its improvement by elcatonin treatment. J Bone Miner Metab 23:167–173

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Zahavi A, Geertzen JHB, Middel B, Staal M, Rietman JS (2004) Long term effect (more than five years) of intrathecal baclofen on impairment, disability, and quality of life in patients with severe spasticity of spinal origin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75:1553–1557

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Zanoli G (2005) Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery. Acta Orthop Suppl 76:5–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Zanoli G, Stromqvist B, Padua R, Romanini E (2000) Lessons learned searching for a HRQoL instrument to assess the results of treatment in persons with lumbar disorders. Spine 25:3178–3185

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunnar Németh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Németh, G. Health related quality of life outcome instruments. Eur Spine J 15 (Suppl 1), S44–S51 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1046-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1046-8

Keywords

  • Health status
  • Health status indicators
  • Quality of life
  • Quality-adjusted life-years
  • Questionnaires/standards
  • Review
  • SF-36
  • Nottingham Health Profile
  • Sickness Impact Profile
  • EuroQol
  • EQ-5D
  • SF-6D