Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 125–128 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life measurement in pharmaceutical care Targeting an outcome that matters

  • Nadir M. Kheir
  • J.W. Foppe van Mil
  • John P. Shaw
  • Janie L. Sheridan


The shift in emphasis of healthcare from dealing only with disease and death to also managing illness, meant that healthcare providers started to realise the importance of assessing the quality of the patient's life as a new therapeutic outcome. This is equally true in the evolving concept of pharmaceutical care, the ultimate target of which is improving the patient's quality of life (QoL) through a cooperative alliance between the pharmacist and the patient. This article discusses the place of QoL assessment in today' s healthcare environment, with special emphasis on its use in the practice of pharmaceutical care.

Humanistic outcomes Patient outcomes Pharmaceutical care Pharmacists Quality of life 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    WHO (World Health Organization). Assessment of quality of life in health care: a working party report. Geneva: WHO, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levine S. The meaning of health, illness, and quality of life. In: Geggenmoose-Holzman I, Brenner H, Flick U, editors. Quality of life and health: concepts, methods and applications. Berlin: Blackwell Wissenschaft, 1995; 7–12.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raeburn JM and Rootman I. Quality of life and health promotion. In: Renwick R, Brown I and Nagler M, editors. Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation. New York: Sage Publications, 1995; 14–25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 533–43.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lobas NH, Lepinski PW, Abramowitz PW. Effects of pharmaceutical care on medication cost and quality of patient care in an ambulatory-care clinic. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 1681–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmed SM, Rana AK, Chowdhury M, Bhuiya A. Measuring perceived health outcomes in non-western culture: does SF-36 have a place? J Health Popul Nutr 2002; 20: 334–42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bentley JP, Smith MC, Banahan 3rd BF, Frate DA, Parks BR. Quality of life assessment by community pharmacists: an exploratory study. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 175–86.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Epstein RS et al. Evaluation of impairment of health related quality of life in asthma: development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials. Thorax 1992; 47: 76–83.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulz M, Verheyen F, Muhlig S et al. Pharmaceutical care services for asthma patients: a controlled intervention study. J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 41: 668–76.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clareburt R. Therapeutic outcomes in the Southland Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Care project. BPharm Honours Thesis. School of Pharmacy. Dunedin: University of Otago, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linn W et al. ACCP Task Force on Ambulatory Care Clinical Pharmacy Practice. Establishing and evaluating clinical pharmacy services in primary care. American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy, 1994; 14: 743–58.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield SG et al. The medical outcome study: an application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989; 262: 925–30.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 1990; 16: 199–208.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunt, SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J et al. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1980; 34: 281–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deyo RA, Inui TS, Leininger JD, Overman SS. Measuring functional outcomes in chronic disease: a comparison of traditional scales and a self-administered health status questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 1983; 21: 180–92.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hellers G. A new quality of life questionnaire for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Cleve Clin J Med 1992; 59: 56–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schultz M. Applying health status instruments in pharmaceutical care research. Proceedings of the 2nd International Working Conference on Quality Issues in Pharmaceutical Care Research. Hillerod, Denmark, January 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Volume CI, Farris KB, Kassam R et al. Pharmaceutical care research and education project: patient outcomes. J Am Pharm Assoc.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malone DC, Carter BL, Billups SE et al. Can clinical pharmacists affect SF-36 scores in veterans at high risk for medication-related problems? J Med Care 2001; 39: 113–22.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guyatt G, Walters S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 171–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadir M. Kheir
    • 1
  • J.W. Foppe van Mil
    • 2
  • John P. Shaw
    • 1
  • Janie L. Sheridan
    • 1
  1. 1.The School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesAuckland UniversityNew Zealand
  2. 2.Pharmacy Practice Consultant, Margrietlaan 1ZuidlarenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations