Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal

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

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly recognized for its importance in health research. As there is increasing recognition of the inter-individual difference in response to therapeutic interventions, it may be helpful to apply individualized measures of HRQL. The MYMOP is a commonly used example of such measures, although several adaptations have been developed.

Objective

This review was conducted to identify adaptations of MYMOP, and evaluate the measurement properties of MYMOP and its adaptations.

Methods

Adaptations were identified using MYMOP website and personal communication, supplemented by a SCOPUS search in April 2017. Bibliographies of included studies were hand-searched. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties.

Results

Sixteen studies were included in this review. Adaptations were developed to evaluate individualized therapies in cancer, psychiatry, and acupuncture. The included measures were MYMOP, measure yourself concern and wellbeing, psychological outcome profiles (PSYCHLOPS), and MYMOP-pictorial (MYMOP-P). The quality of the measurement properties varied; none of the included measures met all currently recommended quality criteria for measurement properties.

Conclusion

Current literature provides evidence that MYMOP and its adaptations offer individualized assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and thereby provide a means to understand heterogeneity of treatment effects. However, current recommendations for psychometric testing suggest further validation of these measures would be beneficial.

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

Abbreviations

CORE-OM:

Clinical outcomes routine evaluation-outcome measure

COSMIN:

Consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments

EQ-5D:

EuroQol Group health status index 5-dimensions

FACIT-SpEx:

Functional assessment of chronic illness therapy questionnaire-spiritual subscale

HRQL:

Health-related quality of life

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MOS-6A:

Medical outcome study 6-item general health survey

MYCaW:

Measure yourself concerns and wellbeing

MYMOP:

Measure yourself medical outcome profile

MYMOP-P:

MYMOP-pictorial

PSYCHLOPS:

Psychological outcome profiles

SD:

Standard deviation

SF-36:

Medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey

References

  1. Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mayo, E. N., et al. ISOQOL Dictionary of Quality of Life and Health Outcomes Measurement. 2015; First Edition.

  3. Sales, C. M. D. (2017). Seeing the person in the patient: Making the case for individualized proms in mental healthcare. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 13(3), 184–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sales, C. M. D., & Alves, P. C. G. (2016). Patient-centred assessment in psychotherapy: A Review of individualized tools. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 23(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expectations, 20(1), 11–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowling, A. (1995). What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1447–1462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carr, A. J., Gibson, B., & Robinson, P. G. (2001). Measuring quality of life is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? British Medical Journal, 322, 1240–1243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ostenfeld-Rosenthal, A., & Johannessen, H. (2014). How to capture patients’ concerns and related changes: Comparing the MYCaW questionnaire, semi-structured interview and a priority list of outcome areas. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 22, 690–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ernst, E., & Hung, S. K. (2011). Great expectations: What do patients using complementary and alternative medicine hope for? Patient, 4, 89–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Varadhan, R., Segal, J. B., Boyd, C. M., Wu, A. W., & Weiss, C. O. (2013). A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 818–825.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahabreh, I. J., Hayward, R., & Kent, D. M. (2016). Using group data to treat individuals: Understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. International Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 2184–2193.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aburub, A. S., & Mayo, N. E. (2017). A review of the application, feasibiliyt, and the psychometric properties of the individualized measures in cancer. Quality of Life Research, 26, 1091–1104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wettergren, L., Kettis-Lindblad, Å, Sprangers, M., et al. (2009). The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualized quality-of-life instrument: a systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 18, 737–746.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hickey, A. M., Bury, G., O’Boyle, C. A., Bradley, F., O’Kelly, F. D., & Shannon, W. (1996). A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): Application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. BMJ, 313, 29–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Moons, P., Marquet, K., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2004). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the “schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life-direct weighting” (SEIQoL-DW) in congenital heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lhussier, M., Watson, B., Reed, J., & Clarke, C. L. (2005). The SEIQoL and functional status: How do they relate? Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19, 403–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., et al. (2007). Twelve uears-experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 705–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayo, N. E., Aburub, A., Brouillette, M. J., et al. (2017). In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions. Quality of Life Research, 26, 601–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The patient-generated index. Medical Care, 32, 1109–1126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paterson, C. (1996). Measuring outcomes in primary care: A patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ, 312, 1016–1020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research., 27, 1147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., et al. (2018). COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality Life Research., 27, 1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Quality of life and pharmaco-economics in clinical trials (Book Review) R. Launois. Quality of Life Research, 1 January 1997, Vol. 6(1), pp. 97-98 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

  26. Chen, A. Y., Frankowski, R., Bishop-Leone, J., Hebert, T., Leyk, S., Lewin, J., & Goepfert, H. (2001). The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: The M. D. anderson dysphagia inventory. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 127, 870–876.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guyatt, G. H., Kirshner, B., & Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: What are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 1341–1345.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ganz, P. A., Lee, J. J., & Siau, J. (1991). Quality of life assessment. an independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer, 67, 3131–3135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Idler, E. L., & Angel, R. J. (1990). Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES-I epidemiologic follow-up study. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 446–452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ashworth, M., Shepherd, M., Christey, J., Matthews, V., Wright, K., Parmentier, H., Robinson, S., & Godfrey, E. (2004). A client-centred psychometric instrument: The development of “PSYCHLOPS“(“psychological outcome profile”). Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 4, 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ashworth, M., Evans, C., & Clement, S. (2009). Measuring psychological outcomes after cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: A comparison between a new patient-generated measure “pSYCHLOPS” psychological outcome profiles and “hADS” hospital anxiety and depression scale. Journal of Mental Health, 18, 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ashworth, M., Robinson, S., Evans, C., Shepherd, M., Conolly, A., & Rowlands, G. (2007). What does an idiographic measure (PSYCHLOPS) tell us about the spectrum of psychological issues and scores on a nomothetic measure (CORE-OM)? Primary Care and Community Psychiatry, 12, 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ashworth, M., Robinson, S., Godfrey, E., Parmentier, H., Shepherd, M., Christey, J., Wright, K., & Matthews, V. (2005). The experiences of therapists using a new client-centred psychometric instrument, “PSYCHLOPS” (“psychological outcome profile”). Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5, 37–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ashworth, M., Robinson, S. I., Godfrey, E., Shepherd, M., Evans, C., Seed, P., Parmentier, H., & Tylee, A. (2005). Measuring mental health outcomes in primary care: The psychometric properties of a new patient-generated outcome measure, ‘PSYCHLOPS’ (‘psychological outcome profiles’). Primary Care Mental Health, 3, 261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Day, A. (2004). The development of the MYMOP pictorial version. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22, 68–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Day, A., & Kingsbury-Smith, R. (2004). An audit of acupuncture in general practice. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22, 87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Evans, C., Ashworth, M., & Peters, M. (2010). Are problems prevalent and stable in non-clinical populations? problems and test-retest stability of a patient-generated measure, PSYCHLOPS (psychological outcome profiles), in a non-clinical student sample. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38, 431–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cooke, H. J. (2000). Is the adapted “measure yourself medical outcome profile questionnaire an appropriate tool to evaluate the bristol cancer help centre’s supportive programme? Dissertation. University of Exeter

  39. Paterson, C., & Britten, N. (2000). In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes: A qualitative evaluation of the ‘measure yourself medical outcome profile’. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 5, 27–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Paterson, C. (2004). Seeking the patient’s perspective: A qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Quality of Life Research, 13, 871–881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Paterson, C., Langan, C. E., McKaig, G. A., Anderson, P. M., Maclaine, G. D. H., Rose, L. B., Walker, S. J., & Campbell, M. J. (2000). Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: The measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Quality of Life Research, 9, 521–527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Paterson, C., Thomas, K., Manasse, A., Cooke, H., & Peace, G. (2007). Measure yourself concerns and wellbeing (MYCaW): An individualised questionnaire for evaluating outcome in cancer support care that includes complementary therapies. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 15, 38–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Polley, M. J., Seers, H. E., Cooke, H. J., Hoffman, C., & Paterson, C. (2007). How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: A method for use in cancer support care. Supportive Care Cancer, 15, 963–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. MYMOP – welcome. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/mymop/index.php?c=welcome .

  45. Peace, G., & Manasse, A. (2002). The cavendish centre for integrated cancer care: Assessment of patients’ needs and responses. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 10, 33–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. MYMOP—Sister. (2011). Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/mymop/index.php?c=sister&s=mycaw .

  47. Jolliffe, R., Seers, H., Jackson, S., Caro, E., Weeks, L., & Polley, M. J. (2015). The responsiveness, content validity, and convergent validity of the measure yourself concerns and wellbeing (MYCaW) patient-reported outcome measure. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 14, 26–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Seers, H. E., Gale, N., Paterson, C., Cooke, H. J., Tuffrey, V., & Polley, M. J. (2009). Individualised and complex experiences of integrative cancer support care: Combining qualitative and quantitative data. Supportive Care Cancer, 17, 1159–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Psychlops|Home. (2011). Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://www.psychlops.org.uk/.

  50. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651–657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lohr, K.N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Valderas, J. M.. Ferrer, M.. Mendivil, J.. Garin, O.. Rajmil, L., Herdman, M.. Alonso, J., Scientific Committee on “Patient-Reported Outcomes” of the IRYSS Network. (2008). Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., et al. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 5928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA, 282(11), 1054–1060.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Greenland, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2001). On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics, 2(4), 463–471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Buscemi, N., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Tjosvold, L., & Klassen, T. P. (2006). Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(7), 697–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. de Wit, M., Delemarre-van de Waal, H. A., Bokma, J. A., Haasnoot, K., Houdijk, M. C., Gemke, R. J., & Snoek, F. J. (2008). Monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes improve psychosocial well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 31, 1521–1526.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Brewin, T., & Garrow, J. (1995). Commissioning complementary medicine. Evaluations of efficacy of treatments should be consistent. BMJ, 311, 809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Fisher, P., & Eden, A. (1995). Commissioning complementary medicine. Homoeopathic hospitals have unique skill. BMJ, 311, 809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. PROMIS. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from http://www.nihpromis.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.

  64. National Health Services. Retrieved September 4, 2017 http://www.nhs.uk/Search/Pages/Results.aspx?___JSSniffer=true&q=patient+reported+outcomes.

  65. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research – CIHR. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html.

  66. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.pcori.org/.

  67. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.ispor.org/about-ispor.asp.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Charlotte Paterson for her helpful comments. During the time of this work, Jeffrey Johnson was a Senior Scholar with Alberta Innovates- Health Solutions and a Centennial Professor at the University of Alberta. During the time of this work, Sunita Vohra was a Health Scholar with Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions and a Killam Professor at the University of Alberta.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Sana Ishaque & Jeffrey A. Johnson

  2. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Sana Ishaque & Sunita Vohra

  3. School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Sana Ishaque

Authors
  1. Sana Ishaque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sunita Vohra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunita Vohra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants or animals

This review does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not applicable to this review as no primary data were collected.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Quality criteria for measurement properties
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ishaque, S., Johnson, J.A. & Vohra, S. Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal. Qual Life Res 28, 879–893 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2046-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2046-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation