Advertisement

Subjective Quality of Life Assessment in Therapeutic Trials: Presentation of a New Instrument in France (SQLP: Subjective Quality of Life Profile) and First Results

  • A. Dazord
  • P. Gerin
  • J. P. Boissel

Summary

In therapeutic trials, quality of life studies are usually based on a health model which results in a restrictive view. Therefore, it is important to clearly define the concept of the quality of life, since ambiguous concepts can alter the results. The key to this problem is the clear distinction between the two components of the quality of life, i.e., subjective and objective. The latter component is the only one considered in the current medical approach.

The use of the subjective quality of life introduces a number of methodological problems not found when the objective quality of life is assessed, and thus requires a specific model which can be derived from the model of “life goals” used by sociologists. This model is presented here and illustrated with some results obtained with a new questionnaire, the Subjective Quality of Life Profile (SQLP). We suggest that both subjective and objective quality of life studies should be considered in order to emphasize the humanistic approach to therapeutic indications.

Keywords

Therapeutic Trial Subjective Quality Life Assessment Objective Quality Multiple Correspondence Analysis 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews FM, Witney SB (1976) Social indicators of well-being: American’s perception of life quality. New York, Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Benzecri JP (1979) L’analyse des données. Dunod 3°edGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergner M (1987) Development, testing and use of the Sickness Impact Profile. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life: assessment and application. MTP Press Limited, Lancaster, Boston, The Hague, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernheim JL, Buyse M (1983) The anamnestic comparative self-assessment for measuring the subjective quality of life of cancer patients. J Psychol Soc 14: 25.38Google Scholar
  5. Cella DF, Tulsky DS (1991) Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects (Appendix pp 209–232). Oncology 4: 29–38Google Scholar
  6. Chambers LW (1987) The McMaster Health Index questionnaire: an update. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life: assessment and application. MTP Press Limited, Lancaster, Boston, The Hague, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Crumbaugh JC (1968) Cross-validation of Purpose-in-life Test based on Frankl’s concepts. J Individ Psychol 24: 74–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerin P, Dazord A, Boissel JP, Hanauer MT, Moleur P, Chauvin F (1989) L’evaluation de la qualité de la vie dans les essais thérapeutiques. Aspects conceptuels et pré sentation d’un questionnaire. Thérapie 44: 355–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerin P, Dazord A, Boissel JP, Hanauer MT (1990) Assessment of quality of life in therapeutic trials. In: Strauch G, Husson JM (eds) Recent trends in clinical pharmacology.EDITIONS INSERM, 186: 143–163Google Scholar
  10. Gerin P, Dazord A, Cialdella P, Leizorovicz A, Boissel JP, and the OCAPI Research Group (1991) Le questionnaire < <Profil de la Qualité de la Vie Subjective> > (PQVS). Premiers éléments de validation. Thérapie 46: 131–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerin P, Dazord A, Boissel JP, Chifflet R (1992) Quality of life assessment in therapeutic trials: rationale for and presentation of a more appropriate instrument. Fund Clin PharmacoI 6: 263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joyce CRB (1987) Quality of life: the state of the art in clinical assessment. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life: assessment and application. MTP Press, Limited, Lancaster, Boston, The Hague, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH (1949) The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents against cancer. In: McLeod CM (ed) Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York, Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Luborsky L, Crits-Cristoph P, Alexander L, Margolis M, Cohen M (1983) Two helping alliance methods of predicting outcomes of psychotherapy: a counting signs versus a global rating method. J Nervous Mental Dis 171: 590–603Google Scholar
  15. McEwen J (1987) The Nottingham Health Profile: In: Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life: assessment and application. MTP Press Limited, Lancaster, Boston, The Hague, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Montgomery SA, Asberg M (1979) A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Brit J Psychiat 134: 382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scheffé H (1959) The analysis of variance. New York, WileyGoogle Scholar
  18. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. MCGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Dazord
  • P. Gerin
  • J. P. Boissel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations