PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 621–626

Reassessing Quality-of-Life Instruments in the Evaluation of New Drugs

Current Opinion

Summary

Investigators use 2 fundamental approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Generic instruments include health profiles that tap into the full range of HR-QOL issues and are widely applicable, but may lack responsiveness to small but important changes in HR-QOL. Utility measures summarise HR-QOL in a single number between 0 (death) and 1 (full health) and are useful for economic analysis, but may lack responsiveness. Accumulating data suggest the alternatives to generic measures, instruments that are specific to a function or a health problem, are more responsive than generic measures. While direct comparison of the validity and responsiveness of alternative approaches remains limited and should be extended, it is already clear that comprehensive assessment of HR-QOL requires more than 1 type of instrument.

To be useful, HR-QOL instruments must be interpretable. Investigators are beginning to elucidate what constitutes trivial, small but important, or large changes in HR-QOL. Approaches include both within-and between-patient global ratings, observing HR-QOL scores in different patient populations, and observing the magnitude of change in HR-QOL with established interventions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272 (8): 619–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guyatt GH, Cook OJ. Health status, quality of life, and the individual patient: a commentary on ‘A Critical Appraisal ofQuality-of-Life Measurements’ byTM Gill and AR Feinstein. JAMA 1994; 272: 630–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: F217–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life: basic sciences review. Ann Intern Med 1993; 70: 225–30Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cantril H. The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press, 1965Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tandon PK, Stander H, Schwarz Jr RP. Analysis of quality of life data from a randomized, placebo controlled heart-failuretrial. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 955–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith 0, Baker G, Davies G, et al. Outcomes of add-on treatment with Lamotrigine in partial epilepsy. Epilepsia 1993; 34: 312–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang SW, Fine R, Siegel 0, et al. The impact of diuretic therapy on reported sexual function. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 2402–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan WW, et al. Methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: impact on quality of life assessedby traditional standard-item and individualized patient preferencehealth status questionnaires. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 59–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D. The use of generic and specific quality-of-life measures in hemodialysis patients treatedwith erythropoietin. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12 Suppl.: 1685–795Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein RS, Gort EH, Guyatt GH, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of respiratory rehabilitation. Lancet 1994; 344: 1394–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health statusmeasure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, et al. The Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262: 925–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parkerson GR, Gehlback SH, Wagner EH, et al. The Duke-UNC Health Profile: an adult health status instrument for primarycare. Med Care 1981; 19: 806–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol 1982; 1: 61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feeny DH, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 490–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 1992 45: 1341–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Keller JL, et al. Measuring functional status in chronic lung disease: conclusions from a randomizedcontrol trial. Respir Med 1989 83: 293–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, et al. A new measure of quality of life for clinical trials inchronic lung disease. Thorax 1987 42: 773–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenthal M, Lohr KN, Rubenstein RS, et al. A conceptualization and measurement of physiologic health for adults:congestive heart failure. Santa Monica (CA): Rand Corporation, 1981Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mcavin CR, Artvinli M, Naoe H. Dyspnea, disability and distance walked: comparison of estimates of exercise performancein respiratory disease. BMJ 1978; 2: 241–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Keller J, et al. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the meaning of a change in quality-of-lifequestionnaire score. Control Clin Trials 1989 10: 407–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, et al. Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Redelmeier DA, Goldstein RS, Guyatt GH. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of twotechniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 1215–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deyo RA, Inui TS, Leininger JD, et al. Measuring functional outcomes in chronic disease: a comparison of traditionalscales and a self-administered health status questionnairein patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 1983; 21: 180–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McSweeney AJ, Grant I, Heaton RK, et. al. Life quality of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Intern Med 1982; 142: 473–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fletcher A, McLoone P, Bulpitt C. Quality of life on angina therapy: a randomised controlled trial of transdermal glyceryltrinitrate against placebo. Lancet 1988; 2: 4–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsRoom 2C12, McMaster University Health Sciences CentreHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations