Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2631–2637 | Cite as

Using patient-reported measurement to pave the path towards personalized medicine

  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
  • Per Hall
  • Donald E. Morisky
  • William E. Narrow
  • Juan Dapueto



Given the potential and importance of personalized or individualized medicine for health care delivery and its effects on patients’ quality of life, a plenary session was devoted to personalized medicine during the 19th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research held in October 2012 in Budapest, Hungary. This paper summarizes the three presentations and discusses their implications for quality-of-life research.


Reviews of the literature and presentation of empirical studies.


Personalized screening for breast cancer. To individualize screening and only target those women with an increased risk for breast cancer, researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm perform a large population-based study to identify high-risk women based on lifestyle, genetics, mammographic morphology, and other markers as well as quality of life. Personalized support for treatment adherence. Inclusion of a simple, brief adherence measure into the clinical visit has demonstrated significant improvement in medication-taking behaviour and resultant improvement in health status. Personalized diagnosis of mental disorders. The DSM-5, the current manual for mental disorders, contains patient-based symptom and diagnosis severity measures that allow more individualized diagnosis than was hitherto possible.


Personalized medicine will continue to be increasingly applied and holds the potential to improve health outcomes including quality of life. At the same time, it will invite a host of new ethical, practical, and psychosocial questions. Further reflection and discussion of how our field can embrace and address these emerging challenges is needed.


Personalized medicine Screening Breast cancer Lifestyle change Adherence Psychiatric diagnosis DSM-5 


  1. 1.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berwick, D. M. (2009). What ‘patient-centered’ should mean: Confessions of an extremist. Health Affairs, 28(4), 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Janssens, A. C., & Van Duijn, C. M. (2009). Genome-based prediction of common diseases: Methodological considerations for future research. Genome Medicine, 18, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breast Cancer Statistics Online. (2013). Retrieved 12 March 2013 from http://www.worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide.
  5. 5.
    Gøtzsche, P. C., & Nielsen, M. (2011). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD001877. PMID: 21249649. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub4.
  6. 6.
    The Nordic Cochrane Centre. (2012). Mammography leaflet. Retrieved 12 March 2013 from http://www.cochrane.dk/.
  7. 7.
    Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer. (2013). Retrieved 12 March 2013 from http://karmastudy.org/.
  8. 8.
    Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). For the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of Life: The EORTC QLQ–C30. A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haynes, R. B., Sackett, D. L., & Taylor, D. W. (1980). How to detect and manage low patient compliance in chronic illness. Geriatrics, 35(1), 91–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fincham, J. (2007). Patient compliance with medications: Issues and opportunities. Binghamton, NY: Pharmaceutical Products Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steiner, J. F., & Earnest, M. A. (2000). The language of medication-taking. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 926–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haynes, R. B., McDonald, H. P., & Garg, A. X. (2002). Helping patients follow prescribed treatment: Clinical applications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 2880–2883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cramer, J., Rosenheck, R., Kirk, G., Krol, W., & Krystal, J. (2003). Medication compliance feedback and monitoring in a clinical trial: Predictors and outcomes. Value in Health, 6, 566–573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Green, L. W., Kreuter, M. W., Deeds, S. G., & Partridge, K. B. (1980). Health education planning: A diagnostic approach (1st ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green, L., & Kreuter, M. (1999). Health promotion planning: An educational and ecological approach (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levine, D. M., Green, L. W., Deeds, S. G., Chwalow, A. J., Russell, R. P., Finlay, J., et al. (1979). Health education for hypertensive patients. Journal of the American Medical Association, 241(16), 1700–1703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ward, H. J., Morisky, D. E., Lees, N. B., & Fong, R. (2000). A community based approach to hypertension control for an underserved minority population: Design and methods. American Journal of Hypertension, 13, 177–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morisky, D. E., Green, L. W., & Levine, D. M. (1986). Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence and long-term predictive validity of blood pressure control. Medical Care, 24, 67–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ward, H. J., Morisky, D. E., Lees, N. B., & Fong, R. (2000). A community based approach to hypertension control for an underserved minority population: Design and methods. American Journal of Hypertension, 13, 177–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morisky, D. E., Malotte, C. K., Choi, P., Davidson, P., Rigler, S., Sugland, B., et al. (1990). A patient education program to improve adherence rates with anti-tuberculosis drug regimens. Health Education Quarterly, 17, 253–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morisky, D. E., Ang, A., Krousel-Wood, M., & Ward, H. (2008). Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure for hypertension control. Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 10(5), 348–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morisky, D. E., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2011). Improving the measurement of self-reported medication nonadherence: Final response. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morisky, D. E. (1986). Nonadherence to medical recommendations for hypertensive patients: Problem and potential solutions. Journal of Health Care Compliance, 1, 5–20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morisky, D. E., Levine, D. M., Green, L. W., Shapiro, S., Russell, P., & Smith, C. R. (1983). Five-year blood pressure control and mortality following health education for hypertensive patients. American Journal of Public Health, 73, 153–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., et al. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 71–82.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maj, M., Pirozzi, R., Formicola, A. M., Bartoli, L., & Bucci, P. (2000). Reliability and validity of the DSM-IV diagnostic category of schizoaffective disorder: Preliminary data. Journal of Affective Disorders, 57, 95–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., et al. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 59–70.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). PROMIS Cooperative Group: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(1), S3–S11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Benyamini, Y. (2011). Why does self-rated health predict mortality? An update on current knowledge and a research agenda for psychologists. Psychology and Health, 26, 1407–1413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 3(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greenhalgh, J., & Meadows, K. (2009). The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5(4), 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2010). Medical profiling and online medicine: The ethics of ‘personalized health care’ in a consumer age. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoerger, M., Epstein, R. M., Winters, P. C., Fiscella, K., Duberstein, P. R., Gramling, R., et al. (2013). Values and options in cancer care (VOICE): Study design and rationale for a patient-centered communication and decision-making intervention for physicians, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. BMC Cancer, 13, 188. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-13-188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sprangers, M. A. G., Sloan, J. A., Veenhoven, R., Cleeland, C. S., Halyard, M. Y., Abertnethy, A. M., et al. (2009). The establishment of the GENEQOL consortium to investigate the genetic disposition of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12, 301–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sprangers, M. A. G., Sloan, J. A., Barsevick, A., Chauhan, C., Dueck, A. C., Raat, H., et al. (2010). The GENEQOL consortium. Scientific imperatives, clinical implications, and theoretical underpinnings for the investigation of the relationship between genetic variables and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1395–1403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
    • 1
  • Per Hall
    • 2
  • Donald E. Morisky
    • 3
  • William E. Narrow
    • 4
  • Juan Dapueto
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Community Health SciencesUCLA Fielding School of Public HealthLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Division of Research American Psychiatric AssociationArlingonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Medical Psychology, Faculty of MedicineUniversidad de la RepúblicaMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations