Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life

  • Lawrence M. Friedman
  • Curt D. Furberg
  • David L. DeMets


The term “quality of life” is widely used by psychologists, sociologists, economists, policy makers, and others. However, what is meant by quality of life varies greatly depending on the context. In some settings, it may include such components as employment status, income, housing, material possessions, environment, working conditions, or the availability of public services. The kinds of indices that reflect quality of life from a medical or health viewpoint are very different, and would include those aspects that might be influenced not only by conditions or diseases but also by medical treatment or other types of interventions. Thus, the term “health-related quality of life (HRQL)” is now commonly used to mean the measurement of one’s life quality from a health or medical perspective.


Sexual Functioning Minimal Clinically Important Difference Minimal Important Difference Conjugate Equine Estrogen HRQL Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Quality of Life Assessment in Cancer Clinical Trials. Report of the Workshop on Quality of Life Research in Cancer Clinical Trials. USDHHS, Bethesda, Maryland, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spilker B (ed.). Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 2000;9:887–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fairclough DL. Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials (Interdisciplinary Statistics). Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganz PA, Reeve BB, Clauser SB, Lipscomb J. Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5049–5141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds.). Measuring Functioning and Well-Being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett M. Measures of Need and Outcome for Primary Health Care. New York: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDowell I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berzon R, Hays RD, Shumaker SA. International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life instruments. Qual Life Res 1993;2:367–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart A. Conceptual and methodologic issues in defining quality of life: State of the art. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 1992;7:3–11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wenger NK, Furberg CD. Cardiovascular Disorders. In Spilker B (ed.). Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mossey JM, Shapiro E. Self-rated health: A predictor of mortality among the elderly. Am J Public Health 1982;72:800–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan GA, Camacho T. Perceived health and mortality: A nine-year follow-up of the human population laboratory cohort. Am J Epidemiol 1993;117:292–304.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schron EB, Shumaker SA. The integration of health quality of life in clinical research: Experiences from cardiovascular clinical trials. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 1992;7:21–28.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sugarbaker PH, Barofsky I, Rosenberg SA, Gianola FJ. Quality of life assessment of patients in extremity sarcoma clinical trials. Surgery 1982;91:17–23.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group. Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:61–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 2002;288:321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Women’s Health Initiative Steering Committee. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy. JAMA 2004;291:1701–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naughton MJ, Jones AS, Shumaker SA. When practices, promises, profits, and policies outpace hard evidence: The post-menopausal hormone debate. J Soc Issues 2005;61:159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hays J, Ockene JK, Brunner RL, et al. for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Effects of estrogen plus progestin on health-related quality of life. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1839–1854.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brunner RL, Gass M, Aragaki A, et al. for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen on health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: Results from the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Clinical Trial. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1976–1986.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kornblith AB, Herndon JE, Silverman LR, et al. Impact of azacytidine on the quality of life of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome treated in a randomized phase III trial: A Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol 2002;29:2441–2452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Testa MA, Anderson RB, Nackley JF, et al. Quality of life and antihypertensive therapy in men: A comparison of captopril and enalapril. N Engl J Med 1993;328:901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shumaker SA, Anderson R, Berzon R, Hayes R (eds.). Special Issue. International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993;2:376–495.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001;33:337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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;11:570–579.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1975;1:277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psych Meas 1977;1:385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McNair DM, Loor M, Droppleman LF. Manual of the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, California: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1971.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dupuy HJ. The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index. In Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, Elinson J (eds.). Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials in Cardiovascular Therapies. Washington, DC: Le Jacq Publishing, 1984, pp. 170–183.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Granger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BB. Outcomes of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: Mesurement by PULSES profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1979;60:145–154.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: A reliability study. Intern Disabil Stud 1988;10:61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hays RD, Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: An aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res 1992;1:73–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hays RD, Revicki DA. Reliability and Validity (Including Responsiveness). In Fayers P, Hays R (eds.). Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials (2nd edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cella DF, Wiklund I, Shumaker SA, et al. Integrating health-related quality of life into cross-national clinical trials. Qual Life Res 1993;2:433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Naughton MJ, Shumaker SA, Anderson R, Czajkowski S. Psychological Aspects of Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement: Tests and Scales. In Spilker B (ed.). Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1991;12:266S–269S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessment the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guyatt G, Osoba D, Wu AW. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: The basics. Value Health 2009;12:S5–S9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:622–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993;2:477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Torrance GW. Integrating Economic Evaluations and Quality of Life Assessments. In Spilker B (ed.). Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qual Life Res 1993;2:467–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Clark PM, Hayes AJ, Glasziou PG, et al. Using the EQ-5D index score as a predictor of outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care 2009;47:61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Special Issue. Moving the QALY forward: Building a pragmatic road. Value Health 2009;12:S1–S39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence M. Friedman
    • 1
  • Curt D. Furberg
    • 2
  • David L. DeMets
    • 3
  1. 1.BethesdaUSA
  2. 2.School of MedicineWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics & Medical InformaticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations