What are quality of life measurements measuring?

Abstract It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumour load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairme...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ 1998-02, Vol.316 (7130), p.542-545
Hauptverfasser: Muldoon, Matthew F, Barger, Steven D, Flory, Janine D, Manuck, Stephen B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 545
container_issue 7130
container_start_page 542
container_title BMJ
container_volume 316
creator Muldoon, Matthew F
Barger, Steven D
Flory, Janine D
Manuck, Stephen B
description Abstract It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumour load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairments, difficulty fulfilling personal and family responsibilities, financial burden, and diminished cognition must also be encompassed. The area of research that has resulted from this recognition is termed “health related quality of life.” It moves beyond direct manifestations of illness to study the patient's personal morbidity—that is, the various effects that illnesses and treatments have on daily life and life satisfaction. Although quality of life assessment was almost unknown 15 years ago, it has rapidly become an integral variable of outcome in clinical research; over 1000 new articles each year are indexed under “quality of life.” Although the importance of quality of life is broadly acknowledged, scepticism and confusion remain about how quality of life should be measured and its usefulness in medical research. These responses may reflect important conceptual and methodological limitations of the current concept of quality of life. We offer a simple framework that describes the core elements of quality of life related to health and use this to evaluate quality of life measurement as it is currently conducted. Summary points Measures of disease status alone are insufficient to describe the burden of illness; quality of life factors such as pain, apprehension, depressed mood, and functional impairment must also be considered Two operational definitions of quality of life are identified—objective functioning and subjective wellbeing Assessments of objective functioning and subjective wellbeing convey different information, they also present different problems in relation to validation Assessment of functioning derived from questionnaires must be validated against measures of directly observed behavioural performance Subjective appraisal of wellbeing may be influenced substantially by psychological factors unrelated to health or to changes over time in patients' criteria for appraising wellbeing Whether and how quality of life researchers respond to these obstacles and deficiencies will probably determine the quality of their work in the future
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2665651</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25178271</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25178271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-6292f4a135615350e77b7016f1e46d5ffebe938f2552901be6f5c0acf088a0473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkctv1DAQxi0EKqvSOxekSEhwQFk8dvzIhQpWpSAq6KE8xGXkpOM2Sx6tnVT0v8dhV8vjACfL-n0z8818jD0EvgSQ-nnVrZcS9NKA5EtViDtsAYW2ubJS3mULXqoytyDtfXYQ45pzLqSxpVZ7bK9UHIyABeOfL92YuUDZ9eTaZrzNBp-1jaesIxenQB31Y9x-mv7i8AG7510b6WD77rOPr4_OVm_ykw_Hb1cvT_JKgxxzLUrhCwdSaVBScTKmMhy0Byr0ufKeKiql9UIpUXKoSHtVc1d7bq3jhZH77MWm79VUdXReJxvBtXgVms6FWxxcg3-SvrnEi-EGhdZKK0gNnmwbhOF6ojhi18Sa2tb1NEwRTWkkGFkk4dN_C3XBpQCwSfn4L-V6mEKfzoBgjFFWiZ-D-UZVhyHGQH5nGjjOwWEKDlNwOAeHKbhU8uj3ZXcF25h-8XUch7DDaZqxwsw83_AmjvR9x134htpIo_D9pxV-fXd8dvrl9BXOx3220c9O_uvuBx2uuIw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777585251</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What are quality of life measurements measuring?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Muldoon, Matthew F ; Barger, Steven D ; Flory, Janine D ; Manuck, Stephen B</creator><creatorcontrib>Muldoon, Matthew F ; Barger, Steven D ; Flory, Janine D ; Manuck, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumour load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairments, difficulty fulfilling personal and family responsibilities, financial burden, and diminished cognition must also be encompassed. The area of research that has resulted from this recognition is termed “health related quality of life.” It moves beyond direct manifestations of illness to study the patient's personal morbidity—that is, the various effects that illnesses and treatments have on daily life and life satisfaction. Although quality of life assessment was almost unknown 15 years ago, it has rapidly become an integral variable of outcome in clinical research; over 1000 new articles each year are indexed under “quality of life.” Although the importance of quality of life is broadly acknowledged, scepticism and confusion remain about how quality of life should be measured and its usefulness in medical research. These responses may reflect important conceptual and methodological limitations of the current concept of quality of life. We offer a simple framework that describes the core elements of quality of life related to health and use this to evaluate quality of life measurement as it is currently conducted. Summary points Measures of disease status alone are insufficient to describe the burden of illness; quality of life factors such as pain, apprehension, depressed mood, and functional impairment must also be considered Two operational definitions of quality of life are identified—objective functioning and subjective wellbeing Assessments of objective functioning and subjective wellbeing convey different information, they also present different problems in relation to validation Assessment of functioning derived from questionnaires must be validated against measures of directly observed behavioural performance Subjective appraisal of wellbeing may be influenced substantially by psychological factors unrelated to health or to changes over time in patients' criteria for appraising wellbeing Whether and how quality of life researchers respond to these obstacles and deficiencies will probably determine the quality of their work in the future</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9501721</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Activities of Daily Living ; Confounding Factors (Epidemiology) ; Data Collection ; Diseases ; Education and Debate ; Health status ; Health Status Indicators ; Humans ; Medical research ; Mental Health ; Personality ; Personality psychology ; Psychology ; Psychometrics ; Quality of Life ; Questionnaires ; Self reports ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Time Factors ; Wellbeing</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 1998-02, Vol.316 (7130), p.542-545</ispartof><rights>1998 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright 1998 British Medical Journal</rights><rights>Copyright: 1998 (c) 1998 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-6292f4a135615350e77b7016f1e46d5ffebe938f2552901be6f5c0acf088a0473</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25178271$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25178271$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,803,885,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9501721$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Muldoon, Matthew F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barger, Steven D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flory, Janine D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manuck, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><title>What are quality of life measurements measuring?</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Abstract It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumour load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairments, difficulty fulfilling personal and family responsibilities, financial burden, and diminished cognition must also be encompassed. The area of research that has resulted from this recognition is termed “health related quality of life.” It moves beyond direct manifestations of illness to study the patient's personal morbidity—that is, the various effects that illnesses and treatments have on daily life and life satisfaction. Although quality of life assessment was almost unknown 15 years ago, it has rapidly become an integral variable of outcome in clinical research; over 1000 new articles each year are indexed under “quality of life.” Although the importance of quality of life is broadly acknowledged, scepticism and confusion remain about how quality of life should be measured and its usefulness in medical research. These responses may reflect important conceptual and methodological limitations of the current concept of quality of life. We offer a simple framework that describes the core elements of quality of life related to health and use this to evaluate quality of life measurement as it is currently conducted. Summary points Measures of disease status alone are insufficient to describe the burden of illness; quality of life factors such as pain, apprehension, depressed mood, and functional impairment must also be considered Two operational definitions of quality of life are identified—objective functioning and subjective wellbeing Assessments of objective functioning and subjective wellbeing convey different information, they also present different problems in relation to validation Assessment of functioning derived from questionnaires must be validated against measures of directly observed behavioural performance Subjective appraisal of wellbeing may be influenced substantially by psychological factors unrelated to health or to changes over time in patients' criteria for appraising wellbeing Whether and how quality of life researchers respond to these obstacles and deficiencies will probably determine the quality of their work in the future</description><subject>Activities of Daily Living</subject><subject>Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Diseases</subject><subject>Education and Debate</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Health Status Indicators</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Mental Health</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Personality psychology</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Self reports</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Wellbeing</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkctv1DAQxi0EKqvSOxekSEhwQFk8dvzIhQpWpSAq6KE8xGXkpOM2Sx6tnVT0v8dhV8vjACfL-n0z8818jD0EvgSQ-nnVrZcS9NKA5EtViDtsAYW2ubJS3mULXqoytyDtfXYQ45pzLqSxpVZ7bK9UHIyABeOfL92YuUDZ9eTaZrzNBp-1jaesIxenQB31Y9x-mv7i8AG7510b6WD77rOPr4_OVm_ykw_Hb1cvT_JKgxxzLUrhCwdSaVBScTKmMhy0Byr0ufKeKiql9UIpUXKoSHtVc1d7bq3jhZH77MWm79VUdXReJxvBtXgVms6FWxxcg3-SvrnEi-EGhdZKK0gNnmwbhOF6ojhi18Sa2tb1NEwRTWkkGFkk4dN_C3XBpQCwSfn4L-V6mEKfzoBgjFFWiZ-D-UZVhyHGQH5nGjjOwWEKDlNwOAeHKbhU8uj3ZXcF25h-8XUch7DDaZqxwsw83_AmjvR9x134htpIo_D9pxV-fXd8dvrl9BXOx3220c9O_uvuBx2uuIw</recordid><startdate>19980214</startdate><enddate>19980214</enddate><creator>Muldoon, Matthew F</creator><creator>Barger, Steven D</creator><creator>Flory, Janine D</creator><creator>Manuck, Stephen B</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>British Medical Association</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980214</creationdate><title>What are quality of life measurements measuring?</title><author>Muldoon, Matthew F ; Barger, Steven D ; Flory, Janine D ; Manuck, Stephen B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-6292f4a135615350e77b7016f1e46d5ffebe938f2552901be6f5c0acf088a0473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Activities of Daily Living</topic><topic>Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Diseases</topic><topic>Education and Debate</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Health Status Indicators</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Mental Health</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Personality psychology</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Self reports</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Wellbeing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Muldoon, Matthew F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barger, Steven D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flory, Janine D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manuck, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Muldoon, Matthew F</au><au>Barger, Steven D</au><au>Flory, Janine D</au><au>Manuck, Stephen B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What are quality of life measurements measuring?</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>1998-02-14</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>316</volume><issue>7130</issue><spage>542</spage><epage>545</epage><pages>542-545</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><abstract>Abstract It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumour load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairments, difficulty fulfilling personal and family responsibilities, financial burden, and diminished cognition must also be encompassed. The area of research that has resulted from this recognition is termed “health related quality of life.” It moves beyond direct manifestations of illness to study the patient's personal morbidity—that is, the various effects that illnesses and treatments have on daily life and life satisfaction. Although quality of life assessment was almost unknown 15 years ago, it has rapidly become an integral variable of outcome in clinical research; over 1000 new articles each year are indexed under “quality of life.” Although the importance of quality of life is broadly acknowledged, scepticism and confusion remain about how quality of life should be measured and its usefulness in medical research. These responses may reflect important conceptual and methodological limitations of the current concept of quality of life. We offer a simple framework that describes the core elements of quality of life related to health and use this to evaluate quality of life measurement as it is currently conducted. Summary points Measures of disease status alone are insufficient to describe the burden of illness; quality of life factors such as pain, apprehension, depressed mood, and functional impairment must also be considered Two operational definitions of quality of life are identified—objective functioning and subjective wellbeing Assessments of objective functioning and subjective wellbeing convey different information, they also present different problems in relation to validation Assessment of functioning derived from questionnaires must be validated against measures of directly observed behavioural performance Subjective appraisal of wellbeing may be influenced substantially by psychological factors unrelated to health or to changes over time in patients' criteria for appraising wellbeing Whether and how quality of life researchers respond to these obstacles and deficiencies will probably determine the quality of their work in the future</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>9501721</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0959-8138
ispartof BMJ, 1998-02, Vol.316 (7130), p.542-545
issn 0959-8138
1468-5833
1756-1833
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2665651
source MEDLINE; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Activities of Daily Living
Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)
Data Collection
Diseases
Education and Debate
Health status
Health Status Indicators
Humans
Medical research
Mental Health
Personality
Personality psychology
Psychology
Psychometrics
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Self reports
Sensitivity and Specificity
Time Factors
Wellbeing
title What are quality of life measurements measuring?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T15%3A10%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20are%20quality%20of%20life%20measurements%20measuring?&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Muldoon,%20Matthew%20F&rft.date=1998-02-14&rft.volume=316&rft.issue=7130&rft.spage=542&rft.epage=545&rft.pages=542-545&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E25178271%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777585251&rft_id=info:pmid/9501721&rft_jstor_id=25178271&rfr_iscdi=true