Subjective Quality of Life Assessment in Therapeutic Trials: Presentation of a New Instrument in France (SQLP: Subjective Quality of Life Profile) and First Results
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.
KeywordsTherapeutic Trial Subjective Quality Life Assessment Objective Quality Multiple Correspondence Analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Andrews FM, Witney SB (1976) Social indicators of well-being: American’s perception of life quality. New York, Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
- Benzecri JP (1979) L’analyse des données. Dunod 3°edGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Cella DF, Tulsky DS (1991) Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects (Appendix pp 209–232). Oncology 4: 29–38Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Scheffé H (1959) The analysis of variance. New York, WileyGoogle Scholar
- Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. MCGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar