Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study proposes to identify for 5 widely used generic HRQL and QOL measures the extent to which function and global feelings of well-being are represented in their content.

Methods

The 5 indices were the EQ-5D, the HUI, the SF-36, SF-12, and the WHOQOL-Bref. A total of 15 raters with a variety of health and research backgrounds mapped the items. Raters independently identified all codes that could possibly map to the item and indicated the code that best reflected the underlying intent of the item, using the standardized mapping rules and methodology. A Delphi process aided consensus for each of the items. The consensus rounds involved reconsideration of item codes for which 70% of raters did not agree on the “best” code. These consensus rounds were terminated when item codes reached the threshold of 70% agreement or when it became evident from that consensus would not be reached.

Results

Function was a predominant construct for the 5 indices, with the proportion of items capturing function ranging from a low of 27% for the WHOQOL-Bref to a high of 92% for the SF-12. Less than 50% of items within the indices mapped to the granularity of function as described by the ICF.

Conclusions

This paper demonstrates an additional method to validate the content of health-related indices to supplement the qualitative methods of consulting with experts and patients.

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. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ichstatprinc.htm. 1998.

  2. Farin, E. (2009). Agreement of patient and physician ratings on mobility and self-care in neurological diseases. Quality of Life Research, 18, 999–1010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sonn, G. A., Sadetsky, N., Presti, J. C., & Litwin, M. S. (2009). Differing perceptions of quality of life in patients with prostate cancer and their doctors. Journal of Urology, 182, 2296–2302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lattig,F., Grob,D., Kleinstueck,F. S., Porchet,F., Jeszenszky,D., Bartanusz,V., O’Riordan,D., and Mannion,A. F. (2009) Ratings of global outcome at the first post-operative assessment after spinal surgery: how often do the surgeon and patient agree? Eur Spine J. 18 Suppl 3, 386-394

  5. Korner-Bitensky, N., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Siemiatycki, J., Shapiro, S., & Becker, R. (1994). Health-related information postdischarge: telephone versus face-to-face interviewing. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 1287–1296.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., Feeny, D. H., Shuaib, A., Carriere, K. C., & Nasser, A. M. (2004). Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke, 35, 607–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein, A. M., Hall, J. A., Tognetti, J., Son, L. H., & Conant, L., Jr. (1989). Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Can they provide valid information about patients’ health status and satisfaction with medical care? Medical Care, 27, S91–S98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Leidy, N. K., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of Existing Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Instruments and Their Modification: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report. Value in Health, 12, 1075–1083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2003). Content comparison of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) instruments based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Quality of Life Research, 12, 750.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moriello, C., Byrne, K., Cieza, A., Nash, C., Stolee, P., & Mayo, N. E. (2007). Mapping the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-16) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 4, 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., Chan, A., Masse, L. C., et al. (2009). Comparing the content of participation instruments using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Health and quality of life outcomes, 7, 93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. WHO. (2001). World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning. Geneva652: Disability and Health Geneva6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mayo, N. E., Poissant, L., Ahmed, S., Finch, L., Higgins, J., Salbach, N., et al. (2004). Incorporating the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) into an Electronic Health Record to Create Indicators of Function: Proof-of-Concept Using the SF-12. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11, 514–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 59–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Valderas, J. M., & Alonso, J. (2008). Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 17, 1125–1135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 205–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustun, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 212–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mayo NE, Kuspinar A, Sheng L, and Scott S (2009) Revisiting the EQ-5D Health States in the Light of Performance and Questionnaire Information. Quality of Life Research (October 2009), A-33.

  20. Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Bode, R. K., Perera, S., & DeRosa, J. (2003). Stroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function. Neurology, 60, 291–296.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Noonan, V. K., Kopec, J. A., Noreau, L., Singer, J., & Dvorak, M. F. (2009). A review of participation instruments based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 8, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Noonan, V. K., Miller, W. C., & Noreau, L. (2009). A review of instruments assessing participation in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 47, 435–446.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Post, M. W., de Witte, L. P., Reichrath, E., Verdonschot, M. M., Wijlhuizen, G. J., & Perenboom, R. J. (2008). Development and validation of IMPACT-S, an ICF-based questionnaire to measure activities and participation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 620–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jette, A. M., Keysor, J., Coster, W., Ni, P., & Haley, S. (2005). Beyond function: predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 2087–2094.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Royal Victoria Hospital Site, Ross Pavilion R4.27, 687 Pine Ave W, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada

    Nancy E. Mayo & Carolina Moriello

  2. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Nancy E. Mayo, Miho Asano, Susara van der Spuy & Lois Finch

Authors
  1. Nancy E. Mayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolina Moriello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miho Asano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susara van der Spuy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lois Finch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy E. Mayo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mayo, N.E., Moriello, C., Asano, M. et al. The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function. Qual Life Res 20, 621–627 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9801-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9801-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation