Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is the Evaluation of the Global Quality of Life Determined by Emotional Status?

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study investigated relationships between global QOL perceptions and well-being dimensions. Especially our goal was to evaluate the impact of generally recognised four broad dimensions of QOL (physical, functional, social and emotional well-being) on global QOL perceptions, additionally person's satisfaction with life achievements and economical situation were measured as well as social demographic variables. The subjects were a representative sample of Finns (n = 4613, from 25 to 65 years) of the FINRISK-97 study. Correlation coefficients and models of hierarchical regression indicated that physical, functional and social well-being as well as sociodemographic factors and satisfaction with life achievements are important factors of global QOL perceptions both among males and females. However percentages of variances explained with these measures were only moderately high, ranging from 1 to 10%. After measures of emotional well-being were entered into the models of hierarchical analyses of regression, variances explained grew dramatically over 20%. The results of the study indicated that global QOL judgements are likely to be based on current emotional state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bullinger M. The challenge of cross-cultural quality of life assessment. Psychol Health [Special Issue: Quality of life: Recent advances in theory and methods ]1997;12(6):815–825.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hyland ME, Sodergren SC. Development of a new type of global quality of life scale, and comparison of performance and preference for 12 global scales. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Aspects Treatment, Care Rehabil 1996;5(5):469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Skevington SM, Bradshaw J, Saxena S. Selecting national items for the WHOQOL: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Soc Sci Med 1999;48(4):473–487.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leventhal H, Colman S. Quality of life: A process view. Psychol Health [Special Issue: Quality of life: Recent ad vances in theory and methods ]1997;12(6):753–767.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF. Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: A meta-analysis. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Aspects Treatment, Care Rehabilitation 1999;8(5):447–459.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fayers PM, Hand DJ, Bjordal K, Groenvold M. Causal indicators in quality of life research. Qual Life Res 1997; 6(5):393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Andrews F, Withey S. Social Indicators of Well-being: Americans Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cantril H. The Pattern of Human Concern. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,1965.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell A, Converse P, Rogers W. The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage,1976.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell A. The Sense of Well-being in America. New York: McGraw-Hill,1981.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cummins R."Assessing quality of life ".In: Brown R (ed.), Quality of Life for People with Disabilities: Models, Re search and Practise. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes,1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993;11(3): 570–579.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luria RE. The validity and reliability of the visual analogue mood scale. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12(1):51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clini cal pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 1986; 27(1):117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Joyce CR, Zutshi DW, Hrubes V, Mason RM. Comparison of xed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1975;8(6):415–420.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: A comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1975;1(4): 379–384.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain 1976;2(2):175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wallenstein SL, Heidrich G, 3rd, Kaiko R, Houde RW. Clinical evaluation of mild analgesics: The measurement of clinical pain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980;10(2):319S–327S.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Choiniere M, Amsel R. A visual analogue thermometer for measuring pain intensity. J Pain Symptom Manage 1996; 11(5):299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJ, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, De Haes HJ. The "utility" of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996;12(2):291–298.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of ve health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med (1982)1997;45(11):1641–1652.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M. Feasibility, validity and test–retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Aspects Treatment, Care Rehabil 1999;8(4):303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grant M, Ferrell B, Schmidt GM, et al. Measurement of quality of life in bone marrow transplantation survivors. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Aspects Treatment, Care Rehabil 1992;1(6):375–384.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hwang SS, Chang VT, BK. Dynamic cancer pain management outcomes: The relationship between pain severity, pain relief, functional interference, satisfaction and global quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002;23(3):190–200.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C.N, M.W, Borasio GD. Patient'assessment of quality of life instruments: A randomised study of SIP,SF-36 and SEIQoL-DW in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2001;191(1–2):103–109.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Matsubayashi K, Okumiya K, Osaki Y, Fujisawa M, Doi Y. Quality of life of old people living in the community. Lancet 1997;350(9090):1521–1522.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Beck A, Ward C, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory of measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatr 1961;4:561–571.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).Br J Clin Psychol 1992;31(3): 301–306.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC. Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontol 1970;10(1): 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sarason I, Sarason B, Shearin E, Pierce G. A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications. J Soc Pers Relat 1987;4:497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;5:1173–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schafer WD. Reporting hierarchical regression results. Measurement &Evaluation in Counselling & Development 1991;24(3):98–101.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Li L, Young D, Wei H, et al. The relationship between objective life status and subjective life satisfaction with quality of life. Behav Med 1998;23:149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Aromaa A, Helioövaara M, Impivaara O, et al. Terveys, toimintakyky ja hoidontarve Suomessa. English Summary: Health,functional limitations and need for care in Finland; Basic results from the Mini-Finland Health Survey. Kans aneläkelaitos, Helsinki,1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Melchior M, Berkman LF, Niedhammer I, Chea M, Goldberg M. Social relations and self-reported health: A prospective analysis of French Gazel cohort. Soc Sci Med, 2003;56:1817–1830.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Krause N. Satisfaction with social support and self-rated health in older adults. Gerontologist 1987;27(3):301–308.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hyland ME. A reformulation of quality of life for medical science. Qual Life Res 1992;1(4):267–272.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Taylor S. The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In: Harvey J (ed.), Cognition, Social Behaviour and the Environment. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum,1981.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland (E-mail:

    H. Heinonen, A.R. Aro & A. Uutela

  2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    A.R. Aro

  3. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, Helsinki, Finland

    A.-M. Aalto

Authors
  1. H. Heinonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A.R. Aro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A.-M. Aalto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Uutela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heinonen, H., Aro, A., Aalto, AM. et al. Is the Evaluation of the Global Quality of Life Determined by Emotional Status?. Qual Life Res 13, 1347–1356 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000040788.12947.b9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000040788.12947.b9

Search

Navigation