Quality of Life Research

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 447–459 | Cite as

Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: A meta-analysis

  • Kevin W. Smith
  • Nancy E. Avis
  • Susan F. Assmann
Article

Abstract

Despite the increasing acceptance of quality of life (QOL) as a critical endpoint in medical research, there is little consensus regarding the definition of this construct or how it differs from perceived health status. The objective of this analysis was to understand how patients make determinations of QOL and whether QOL can be differentiated from health status. We conducted a meta-analysis of the relationships among two constructs (QOL and perceived health status) and three functioning domains (mental, physical, and social functioning) in 12 chronic disease studies. Instruments used in these studies included the RAND-36, MOS SF-20, EORTC QLQ-30, MILQ and MQOL-HIV. A single, synthesized correlation matrix combining the data from all 12 studies was estimated by generalized least squares. The synthesized matrix was then used to estimate structural equation models. The meta-analysis results indicate that, from the perspective of patients, QOL and health status are distinct constructs. When rating QOL, patients give greater emphasis to mental health than to physical functioning. This pattern is reversed for appraisals of health status, for which physical functioning is more important than mental health. Social functioning did not have a major impact on either construct. We conclude that quality of life and health status are distinct constructs, and that the two terms should not be used interchangeably. Many prominent health status instruments, including utility-based questionnaires and health perception indexes, may be inappropriate for measuring QOL. Evaluations of the effectiveness of medical treatment may differ depending on whether QOL or health status is the study outcome.

Health status Meta-analysis Quality of life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Editorial. Quality of life and clinical trials. Lancet 1995; 346: 1–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lerner DJ, Levine S. Health-related quality of life: Origins, gaps, and directions. In: Albrecht GL, Fitz-patrick R (eds) Advances in Medical Sociology: Quality of Life in Health Care. Vol 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mor V, Guadagnoli E. Quality of life measurement: A psychometric tower of Babel. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 1055–1058.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Knippenberg FCE, de Haes JCJM. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: Psychometric properties of instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 1043–1053.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avis NE, Smith KW. Conceptual and methodological issues in selecting and developing quality of life mea-sures. In: Albrecht GL, Fitzpatrick R (eds) Advances in Medical Sociology: Quality of Life in Health Care. Vol 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 619–626.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spitzer W. Advances in health assessment conference discussion panels. J Chron Dis 1987; 40 (Suppl l): 187S-189S.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell A, Converse PE, Rogers WL. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satis-faction. New York, NY: Russell Sage, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hays RD, Stewart AL. The structure of self-reported health in chronic disease patients. Psychol Assessment 1990; 2: 22–30.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson RJ, Wolinsky FD. Gender, race, and health: the structure of health status among older adults. Gerontologist 1994; 34: 24–35.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Molzhan AE, Northcott HC, Hayduk L. Quality of life of patients with end stage renal disease: A structural equation model. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 426–432.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fayers PM, Hand DJ, Bjordal K, Groenvold M. Caisal indicators in quality of life research. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 393–406.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. JAMA 1995; 273: 59–65.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siegrist J, Junge A. Conceptual and methodological problems in research on the quality of life in clinical medicine. Soc Sci Med 1989; 29: 463–468.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Spiegel-halter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care: Applications and issues in assessment. Br Med J 1992; 305: 1074–1077.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tourangeai R. Attitude measurement: A cognitive perspective. In: Hippler H, Schwarz N, Sudman S (eds) Social Information Processing and Survey Methodol-ogys. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson N. Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bollen KA. Structural Equations with Latent Vari-ables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Becker BJ. Using results from replicated studies to es-timate linear models. J Educ Stats 1992; 17: 341–362.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Becker BJ, Schram CM. Examining Explanatory Models through Research Synthesis. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, NY: Russell Sage, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mathsoft, Inc. Mathcad, version 6.0. Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Boston, MA: Academic Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SPSS, Inc. SPSS/PC + 4.0 Chicago, IL, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Becker M, Diamond R, Sainfort F. A new patient fo-cused index for measuring quality of life in persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 239–251.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Psychometric validation of the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 1992; 31: 311–321.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    HoÈ rnquist JO, Wikby A, Hansson B, Andersson P-O. Quality of life: status and change (Qlsc) reliability, va-lidity and sensitivity of a generic assessment approach tailored for diabetes. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 263–279.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ringdal GI, Ringdal K. Testing the EORTC quality of life questionnaire on cancer patients with heteroge-neous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 129–140.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu AW, Rubin HR, Mathews WC et al. A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1991; 29: 786–798.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index. Res Nurs Health 1992; 15: 29–38.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Avis NE, Smith KW, Hambleton RK, Feldman HA, Selwyn A, Jacobs A. Development of the Multi-dimensional Index of Life Quality (MILQ): A quality of life measure for cardiovascular disease. Med Care 1996; 34: 1102–1120.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith KW, Avis NE, Mayer KH, Swislow L. Use of the MQOL-HIV with asymptomatic HIV-positive patients. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 555–560.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ratner PA, Johnson JL, Jeffery B. Examining emotional, physical, social, and spiritual health as deter-minants of self-rated health status. Am J Health Promot 1998; 12: 275–282.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hays RD, Marshall GN, Wang EYI, Sherbourne CD. Four-year cross-lagged associations between physical and mental health in the Medical Outcomes Study. J Consult Clin Psych 1994; 62: 441–449.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–722.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy anal-ysis. Health Psychol 1982; 1: 61–80.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 169–180.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bozzette SA, Hays RD, Berry SH, Kanouse DE. A perceived health index for use in persons with advanced HIV disease: Derivation, reliability and validity. Med Care 1994; 32: 716–731.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Erickson P. Evaluation of a population-based mea-sure of quality of life: The Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALEX). Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 101–114.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and good-ness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980; 88: 588–606.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin W. Smith
    • 1
  • Nancy E. Avis
    • 1
  • Susan F. Assmann
    • 1
  1. 1.New England Research InstitutesThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations