QOL 12 KEY MEETINGS NEWS WORD INDEX Agenda February 8 to 12, 1993 “Quality of Life and Oncology Research” This 5-day seminar, organized as a course, is intended to give methodological basis for Quality of Life evaluations in oncology, and will be held in Milano, Italy. Sessions will be held by Stefano Rosso, Institute of Medical Statistics and Biometry, Statale University, Milano, and Marcello Tamburini, National Cancer Institute, Milano. Language : Italian. For further information, please contact : Brief Communication, Via A. Pollaiudo 16, 20159 Milano. Tel : (39) 2 688 688 6 - 668 052 55 Fax : (39) 2 688 699 2. April 26 and 27, 1993 Quality of Life Evaluation The Drug Information Association (DIA) is pleased to announce its meeting on Quality of Life, to be held at Charleston, South Carolina, USA, on April 26 and 27, 1993. The objective of this meeting is to provide a forum for the exchange of research and development in Quality of Life Evaluation. For further information, please contact : DIA office, PO Box 3113, Maple Glen, PA 190028113, USA. Tel : (1) 215 628 2288 - Fax : (1) 215 641 1229. and on prevention, and will be held in Bern, Switzerland. For further information, please contact : 12th World Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine, C/O AKM Congress Service, PO Box, CH-4005 Basel, Switzerland. Tel : (41) 61 691 51 11 Fax : (41) 61 691 81 89. Call for Abstracts May 20 and 21, 1993 CHEPA’S 6th Annual Health Policy Conference “The Buck stops where ? Accountabilities in Health and Health Care”. The 1993 Conference of the Centre for Health Econonmics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA) held in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, will examine accountability as a theme of current and emerging importance in the Health Policy debate. Please consider contributing to this meeting. Deadline for abstract submissions is December 15, 1992. For further information, please contact : Linda Marsh, Conference Administrator, CHEPA, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Rm 3H26, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 375. Tel : (1) 416 525 9140, ext. 2135 Fax : (1) 416 546 5211. November 14 and 15, 1993 7th Annual ESPO Meeting August 29 - September 2, 1993 12th World Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine. “How can we help” Psychosocial Interventions and Psychotherapies in Medicine. This congress organized by the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine (ICPM) will focus on new concepts in salutogenesis (versus pathogenesis) and health promotion, on intervention strategies, on cooperation models The 7th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Psychological Oncology will be held on November 14-15, 1993 at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus Campus in Jerusalem, Israël. The organizing committee welcomes the submission of abstracts relevant to psychological oncology. For information, please contact : ESPO7, PO Box 8388, Jerusalem 91082, Israël. Tel : (972) 2 617 402 - Fax : (972) 2 637 572. Key Words Pages ABS ACF-SI Asthma Back-Translation Methodology BS Checklist Causal Process Approach Construct Theory COPD Cost-Utility Studies Cronbach’s Coefficient/a Cystic Fibrosis Depressed Patients Epilepsy Hip Replacement Surgery HIV/AIDS HRQL Domains Hypertension International Board of Advisors IQOLA Project Irritable Bowel Syndrome MA Systems Mastery Scale MOS-20 Multiple Sclerosis Oncology/Cancer Open Heart Surgery Osteoarthritis Pediatric Populations/Children Peptic Ulcer Disease Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia Psychological Variables QOL Bibliography Rosenthal Effect SEIQOL Seizure Severity Scale SF-36 SQLP Subjective Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale 11 4 5 2 11 7 7 5 10 3-4-5-9 4 3 11 8 8-9 1 8 1-2 10 8 6 11 9 11 3-6-12 2 8 6-11 8 9 7 4 1 1-8 11 10 3 3 8 N U M B E R Quality of Life : Marks of Interest in Ireland and the Netherlands By CRB Joyce, Psychiatric University Policlinic, Bern, Switzerland. The increasing importance of studying Quality of Life (QOL) in a scientific way was emphazised at two recent meetings, in two quite different ways. t the annual meeting of the (British) Royal College of Psychiatrists, which took place in July of this year at Trinity College Dublin, a session devoted entirely to the subject was chaired by the President of the College, Professor ACP Sims of the University of Leeds. A All five papers were concerned with methodology, a subject that the authors could however scarcely have considered in more different ways, for they ranged from the relaxed but classically statistical to the verbal (and interminable) protocol. But one point seemed to emerge from all, whether deliberately or by accident : a demonstration of the Rosenthal Effect. That is to say, the investigator can all too easily find the results that he expects or for which he or she hopes. If you are gloomy about the QOL of senior citizens, then your transcripts will justify your gloom, whereas if you yourself feel positive about the rewards of old age, you are likely to find respondents, even to conventional questionnaires, who agree with you. Director of Publication: Bernard Jambon, Chairman NEWS LETTER Position : Coordination: Address : Dr. Catherine Acquadro, MAPI Country : Tel : 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France. Fax : Tel: (33) 72 33 00 48. My name : Fax: (33) 78 53 67 61. Return to: Dr. Catherine Acquadro, MAPI, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France. Fax (33) 78 53 67 61. ✂ My address : MEDCOM, Lyon, France. ISSN 1161-6407 MAPI Name : OCT 92 NEWS... The Quality of Life Newsletter is backed by the contract research organization of MAPI Group. I wish the Quality of Life Newsletter to be sent to : LETTER 5 Interest was shown in a quite different manner by those attending a September workshop on Individual Judgement and Decision-Making, organized by the Department of Psychology of the University of Amsterdam. A relatively brief mention in one paper of the practical application of Social Judgement Theory to the estimation of QOL (the SEIQOL)* caused a surprising number of young Dutch sociologists and psychologists to reveal that they had recently begun studies of this kind. Again a common, but different, theme emerged : that it is essential to spend sufficient time in careful preparation, if your intended subjects are not to be discountenanced by the very unfamiliarity of such a simple and common-sense approach. * See Pr. O’Boyle’s article in same issue of QOL Newsletter, P 8. - JAN 93 METHODS A Critical Review of Cross National Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments By Richard Berzon, Dr. P.H., Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics Scientist, Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA, and Sally Shumaker, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Section Head, Social Sciences and Health Policy, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. This is a summary of a meeting held from 25-26 August to review present and future directions for the international use, application and performance of health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments. he document that served as the point of departure for the meeting was written by Dr. Sally Shumaker and her colleagues, Drs. Roger Anderson and Michelle Naughton, of the Bowman Gray School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Iterative review of the document was provided by a fourteen member International Board of Advisors (1). The project was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Co. The Board of Advisors met at the company in Research Triangle Park, NC. T The need for cross nationally valid healthrelated quality of life (HRQL) measures for use in international clinical trials is recognized by quality of life scientists throughout the world. HRQL research still faces special challenges within the context of international efficacy trials. Cross national variations in such factors as : perceptions of health and sickness, the interpretation of symptoms, the meaning of quality of life, and expectations for care continue to determine how areas of HRQL and functional status are understood, assessed and defined. These variations make it difficult to conceptualize HRQL and to identify standards of agreement by which present and future measures can be evaluated for cross national research. The experts who convened in North Carolina, however, did reach agreement on short and long term strategies for addressing these issues and methods for moving the field of HRQL measurement forward. First, the Advisors agreed that four areas (domains) were essential to any HRQL measure. These domains include physical, mental/psychological, and social health, as well as global perceptions of health and wellbeing. Other HRQL domains considered important include pain, energy/vitality, sleep, (continued on p. 2) S U M M A R Y Methods 2 7 A Critical Review of Cross National Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments by Richard Berzon and Sally Shumaker 4 6 The Causal Process Approach to Quality of Life by Michael E. Hyland Instruments 3 5 A New Instrument to Assess the Subjective Quality of Life of Patients : the Subjective Quality of Life Questionnaire (SQLP by A. Dazord, P. Gerin and J.P. Boissel Quality of Life Assessment in Adult Cystic Fibrosis : the Adult CF Symptoms Index by David A. Haase and Patricia Hazell 8 Developing a Quality of Life Questionnaire for Patients with Respiratory Illness by A.R. Maillé, C.J.M. Koning and A.A. Kaptein Two Multi-Attribute Systems for Measuring Health Status and Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life by David Feeny, William Furlong and George W. Torrance The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQOL) by Ciaran A. O'Boyle Work in Progress 10 International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project by Barbara Gandek 11 Assessing Quality of Life and Quality of Medical Services for People with Epilepsy by Gus Baker and Ann Jacoby Meetings - Agenda 11-12 From January 92 to November 93 Results 9 Measuring Health Status of Patients with HIV Disease Using the MOS Short-Form Health Survey by John D. Pïette, Vincent Mor, John A. Fleishman, Tom Wachtel and Michael Stein News.../Publications 2-4-6-8-9 Key Word Index 12 QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 2 METHODS WO R K Assessing Quality of Life and Quality of Medical Services for People with Epilepsy (continued) Agreement was reached on minimum criteria to evaluate cross national HRQL measures for clinical trials. Optimal criteria include reliability; validity; especially construct validity; responsiveness to change; and interpretation that is, by what methodology and scoring mechanism is the data understandable ? In the future, researchers ought to strive to satisfy all optimal criteria within the country in which the measure is developed prior to its translation and cultural adaptation elsewhere. For the present, however, it was agreed that research using a HRQL instrument can proceed if, at a minimum, the instrument has been shown to be reliable and valid in the host country and it has been translated using appropriate techniques. Evidence to provide further support of psychometric properties can be built into the clinical trial. The process by which measures are culturally adapted ought to include use of focus groups Choice of a HRQL measure for a clinical trial is dependent upon a number of variables within the nature and design of the experiment. Perhaps the most important consideration is the condition or disease itself, particularly its natural history and sequelae. Characteristics of the population to be accrued into the trial, such as its age and disease status, are necessary to interpret the HRQL results of the intervention. Knowledge of the intervention itself - how its side effects differ from the sequelae of the disease under treatment - requires careful thought and understanding prior to selection or development of the instrument. In conclusion, agreement was reached on a number of critical issues affecting present and future HRQL cross national research. In the short term, it is the intent of the Board of Advisors to apply these criteria in a continuing review of generic and disease-specific cross national measures, and to identify those measures that best meet these guidelines for future research needs. Instruments now in use may require refinement in consideration of cross national differences. However, it was the recommendation of the Board that current research should continue with available measures that best meet these guidelines at the same time that future instrument development to meet optimal criteria proceeds. It is understood that evaluative criteria will undergo refinement as this field matures. A full summation of this meeting will appear in a forthcoming special issue of Quality of Life Research. By Gus Baker, Department of Neurosciences, Walton Hospital, Liverpool, and Ann Jacoby, Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. (1) International Board of Advisors : Neil K. Aaronson, Ph.D., the Netherlands; Marilyn Bergner, Ph.D., USA; Denis Bucquet, M.D., France; Monika Bullinger, Ph.D., Germany; David Cella, Ph.D., USA; David H. Feeny, Ph.D., Canada; Gordon Guyatt, M.D., Canada; Ron Hays, Ph.D., USA; Robert Kaplan, Ph.D, USA; Donald Patrick, Ph.D., USA; Dennis Revicki, Ph.D., USA; Anita Stewart, Ph.D., USA; Ingela Wiklund, Ph.D., Sweden; David Wilkin, Ph.D., UK. (2) Jordi Alonso. Dealing with Cross-cultural Differences when Measuring Health Status. QOL Newsletter 1992; 4: 1-2. • P U B L I C AT I O N Books Quality of Life after Open Heart Surgery Edited by Paul J. Walter, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Cardiac Surgery at the University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. The technical evolution of Cardiac Surgery in the last decades has been rewarded with longterm survival with few complications. matching improvement in the quality of this survival as subjectively felt by the patient has now become most important to assess the justification of surgery. T his book is the summary of the proceedings of an international symposium which addressed the growing demand in this fact of cardiac surgery. For the first time, quality of life after valve replacement, coronary bypass, surgery for congenital heart disease, and heart transplantation has been extensively analyzed in terms of the physiological state, intellectual functioning, emotional state, performance of social roles and general satisfaction. The patient’s well-being has become the focus of a joint effort of cardiologists, surgeons, general practitioners, psychologists, sociologists and occupational physicians, for all of whom this book offers a guide to the to the improvement of our patients’ “quality of life open heart surgery”. A A study to assess quality of life and quality of medical services provided to people with epilepsy is currently being undertaken in the Mersey Health Region in England. he study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, is being carried out joinly by the Departments of Neurosciences at Walton Hospital, Liverpool, the University Departments of General Practice and Clinical Psychology and the Centre for Health Services Research at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. T Around a thousand patients, identified through general practitioner morbidity registers and repeat prescription records, are being asked to complete questionnaires to examine their views and experiences of the care they receive for their epilepsy, and the impact of the condition on their overall quality of life. In addition, the general practitioners through whom the patients are being identified, are being asked to undertake an audit of the care they provide for their patients with epilepsy. A number of previous studies have examined the psychosocial aspects of epilepsy, but few have attempted to address the relationship between quality of life and quality of care in a systematic way. This is, to our knowledge, the first largescale study to audit care for people with epilepsy. Questionnaires for both adults and children have been developed, based on a diseasespecific model of physical, social and psychological well-being. The measures If you know anyone who receiving the Quality of Name : Life Newsletter, please Position : For further information, please contact : complete the reply Address : USA/Canada : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358, USA. Fax : (1) 617 871-6528. Rest of the World : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Fax : (31) 78 52 44 74. coupon(s) and return to: • incorporated in the adult questionnaire include a novel seizure severity scale (1), a scale to measure life fulfilment (2), a scale to assess the impact of epilepsy on everyday functioning (3), the Affect-Balance Scale (4), the Mastery Scale (5) and a scale to measure feelings of stigma (6). Patients are also asked about the care they have received in the past year both at hospital and in general practice, and about their satisfaction with their care. (6) Ryan R., Kempner K., and Emlen, A. C. The Stigma of Epilepsy as a Self-Concept. Epilepsia 1980; 21: 433-444. Parents of children under 16 are asked to complete a questionnaire on their behalf. To assess the children’s psychosocial functioning, we are using a novel carer’s assessment of seizure severity scale, a scale to measure the impact of epilepsy on everyday life and the Behavioural Symptoms Checklist (7). Parents are also asked about their contacts with primary and secondary care and their satisfaction with services. Social and Psychological Aspects of Multiple Sclerosis : Implications for Diagnostics, Management and Rehabilitation. The study will be completed by mid-1993 and it is hoped the information gained will be valuable in increasing the efficacy of services for people with epilepsy. • (1) Baker G.A., Smith D.F., Dewey M., Morrow J., Crawford P.M., and Chadwick D.W. The Development of a Seizure Severity Scale as an Outcome Measure in Epilepsy. Epilepsy Research 1991; 8: 245-251. (2) Baker G.A. The Development of a Novel Scale to Assess Life Fulfilment as part of the Further Refinement of a Quality of Life Model for Epilepsy (In Preparation). (3) Jacoby A. Measuring the Impact of Epilepsy : the Initial Development of a Novel Scale (In Preparation). (4) Bradburn N.M. The Structure of Psychological Wellbeing. Chicago : Aldine, 1969. (5) Pearlin L., and Schooler C. The Structure of Coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 1978; 19: 2-21. MEETINGS Agenda January 6 to 8, 1993 This International Conference is being organized by the Department of Human Sciences and the Centre for the Study of Health, Sickness and Disablement at Brunel University, and will be held at St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, U.K. For further information, please contact : Pr. John T.E. Richardson, Dpt. of Human Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB 8 3PH, U.K. Tel : (44) 895 274 000 - Fax : (44) 895 232 806. January 28, 1993 Economic Evaluation of DrugsMethodologies This symposium, organized by “Médicament et Santé” (Drug and Health), will be held at the CNIT, Paris La Défense, France. Methodological basis of Economic Evaluation of Drugs and selected examples will be presented. For further information, please contact : Dr. Henry, Médicament et Santé, Hôpital Broca, 5456 rue Pascal, 75013 Paris. Tel : (33) 1 49 60 75 70 - Fax : (33) 1 49 60 10 92. NEWS LETTER Country : Dr. Catherine Acquadro, Tel : MAPI Fax : My name : 27 rue de la Villette, My address : 69003 Lyon, France. Fax: (33) 78 53 67 61. (7) Rutter M., Graham P., and Yule W. A Neuropsychiatric Study in Childhood. London : Heinemann, 1970. I wish the Quality of Life Newsletter to be sent to : might be interested in ✂ Second, the Advisory Board agreed that the primary source for HRQL questionnaires should always be the study participants. However, recognizing that this is not always possible, observers - including family members, intimate friends, health care providers, and researchers - can be considered. The critical point is that the primary source of HRQL data (e.g., the patient) will, in most instances, provide the most accurate measure of HRQL. Thus, any divergence from the primary source will result in a decrement of the accuracy of the information. to assure conceptual equivalence. Translation and back-translation methodology was described in a recent MAPI QOL Newsletter (2), and there was consensus that these types of efforts are necessary and appropriate as first steps toward the development of cross national measures. It was agreed as well that cross cultural adaptation of HRQL measures should include equivalence of the instructions, training and format relevant to administering the instrument. IN PROGRESS England A Critical Review of Cross National Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments appetite, and symptoms relevant to the intervention and to the disease etiology. Board members further agreed that a critical minimum number of domains is not required to claim that HRQL was assessed within a clinical trial. The decision to include a HRQL domain is entirely dependent on the characteristics of the study; that is, the trial design, the population studied, and the expected positive and negative effects of the intervention (including placebo and usual care). As long as all domains of HRQL are carefully considered and the investigator can provide a reasonable rationale for the exclusion of a domain, then it can be argued that HRQL is an outcome of the study. 11 Return to: Dr. Catherine Acquadro, MAPI, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France. Fax (33) 78 53 67 61. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 10 WORK 3 I NSTRUMENTS IN PROGRESS Worldwide France International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project A New Instrument to Assess the Subjective Quality of Life of Patients : the Subjective Quality of Life Questionnaire (SQLP) By Barbara Gandek, New England Medical Center Hospitals, Boston, MA, USA By A. Dazord, P. Gerin, SCRIPT-Inserm, Hôpital St Jean de Dieu, Lyon, and J.P. Boissel, Unité de Pharmacologie Clinique, Lyon, France. A project is underway to translate and adapt the MOS SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in up to 15 countries for use in international studies of health outcomes. QOLA is a 4-year project to translate and adapt the widely-used MOS SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in up to 15 countries and validate, norm, and document the new translations as required for their use in clinical trials and health care policy studies. I In addition to the eight-scale SF-36 health profile, the project will also validate psychometrically-based physical and mental health summary scores, as well as health utility indexes incorporating SF-36 scales for use in cost-utility studies. The SF-36 was developed over the past ten years, using questionnaires and data from the Medical Outcomes Study (1-5). It contains 36 items measuring physical and mental functioning, social and role disability, and general health perceptions. The SF-36 currently is being used by more than 100 health care delivery organizations and in numerous English-language clinical trials. Although only the U.S.-English version of the SF-36 has been published and validated, studies underway in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (6) have demonstrated the feasibility of achieving valid translations. These studies underscore the importance of standardized procedures of translation and linguistic evaluation, as well as rigorous psychometric and clinical validation of forms to be used in multiple languages (see, for example, the formal tests of measurement models reported in (7) for the Chinese translation of the Mental Health Inventory). IQOLA Project translations and/or Eglishlanguage adaptations currently are underway in : Australia, Canada (English-Canadian and French-Canadian), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Additional translations are planned for other countries, including Belgium. Within each country, a standard procedure of forward and backward translation, review by representative focus groups, and formal evaluation of the quality of the translation is being conducted. Data from clinical trials and other studies will be used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated forms, using standard psychometric techniques of reliability and validity assessment, including empirical tests of validity in relation to clinical status. The measures will be refined in an iterative cycle to enhance their quality and to evaluate crosscultural empirical validity. Additional project goals include : construction of psychometrically-based physical and mental health summary scores and health utility indexes that incorporates the SF-36 for use in cost-utility and other economic evaluations; collection of general population norms for each country; and preparation of user’s manuals and computerized scoring software that document how to administer, score, analyze, and interpret SF-36 scales, summary scales and index scores in each country. • ■ Principal sponsors of the IQOLA Project are Glaxo Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation. Additional sponsors will be announced soon. ■ The IQOLA Project is directed by John E. Ware, Ph.D., at the Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals. IQOLA include an internationally recognized team of collaborators, including : Neil K. Aaronson, Ph.D., The Netherlands Cancer Institute, The Netherlands; Jordi Alonso, M.D., Ph.D., Institute of Medical Research, Spain; Giovanni Apolone, M.D., Mario Negri Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, Italy; Denis Bucquet, M.D., National Institute for Health and Medical Research, France; Monika Bullinger, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Psychology, Germany; Shunichi Fukuhara, M.D., M.S.C., The University of Tokyo, Japan; Rob Sanson-Fisher, Ph.D., University of Newcastle, Australia; Marianne Sullivan, Ph.D., Sahlgrenska Hospital, Sweden; and Sharon Wood-Dauphinee, Ph.D., McGill University, Canada. ■ Project administrative and scientific activities in the United States are coordinated by Barbara Gandek, M.S. and other NEMCH staff, including Kathleen M. Bungay, Pharm.D., San Keller, Ph.D. Cand., and Anita Wagner, Pharm.D. Cand., at The Health Institute, NEMCH-Box 345, 750 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, FAX (617) 3508077. Project activities in Europe are coordinated by Catherine Acquadro, M.D. at MAPI, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France, FAX (33) 78 53 67 61. (1) Ware J.E. and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Medical Care 1992; 30(6): 473-483. (2) McHorney C.A., Ware J.E., Rogers W., Raczek A.E., Lu J.F.R. The Validity and Relative Precision of MOS Short and Long-Form Health Status Scales and Darmouth COOP Charts : Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care 1992; 30(5): MS253-MS265. (3) McHorney C.A., Ware J.E., Raczek A.E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and Clinical Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and Mental Health Constructs. Forthcoming. (4) Ware J.E. and McHorney C.A. The SF-36 Health Status Survey: Brief Overview. Quality of Life Newsletter 1991; 1:4. (5) Stewart A.L. and Ware J.E. (eds). Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, N.C., Duke University Press, 1992. (6) Brazier J.E., Harper R., Jones N.M.B., et al. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire : New Outcomes Measure for Primary Care. British Medical Journal 1992; 305: 160-164. (7) Liang J., Wu S.C., Krause N.M., Chiang T.L., Wu H.Y. The Structure of Mental Health Inventory Among Chinese in Taïwan. Medical Care 1992; 30(8): 659-676. Although an individual’s inner experience is not independent of the concrete context of his life (i.e. objective quality of life, ranging from health status to material considerations, including functional capabilities) it cannot be reliably deduced from it. his suggest that the subjective quality of life should be assessed directly ; while the study of the objective quality of life is possible with many existing methods or instruments (1-2), the use of subjective quality of life requires a specific model. We have developed therefore a new questionnaire which has been validated on several sample population (1000 to 1500 individuals) (3-10). It is a self administered questionnaire, in which each main dimension of the subjective quality of life is independently assessed in order to take into consideration the complexity of the situation. Therefore the presentation of results is more appropriate in the form of profiles rather than indices. T The variables (or domains of life to be explored) include : 1. Functional life : motor, psychological, sensory, sexual, sleep, digestion, pain....; 2. Social life : relationships, social roles, interest in the exterior world : 3. Material life; 4. Spiritual life : ability to live esthetic or religious experience, thinking.... ■ The measures to be used for the various items are the following : 1. Ability (or change) ; 2. Degree of satisfaction which is essential for the subjective quality of life assessment ; 3. Importance attributed : the direct assessment of the subjective importance attributed to the various domains of life by the individual is useful if we want to explain the level of the subjective quality of life ; 4. Patients’ expectations at the beginning of a treatment : disappointement because the effective change does not match up the anticipated change, can explain what may seem a paradoxical impairement of the subjective quality of life (negative degree of satisfaction concomitantly with a positive change in the degree of ability) ; 5. Ability to cope : here we deal with another important factor as far as the relationship between the objective and subjective quality of life is concerned. ■ Concerning the validation : Principal component analysis showed that the questionnaire assesses not only health but also relationships and interest in the external world. The internal consistency was shown to be good (Cronbach alpha 0.9) ; The various type of questions were not confused as shown by inter-item correlation studies. Test-retest correlations were satisfactory and acceptability very high. Finally some meaningful correlations were found with other scales like Karnovsky (in the case of patients with cancer), or MADRS (in the case of depressed patients). ■ Results The results obtained were interesting in many aspects : 1. They allow to define different profiles of patients’ quality of life according to their pathology : depressed patients were very dissatisfied with their health, while patients with lung cancer complained about leisures... 2. One can detect after treatments, some very specific, sometimes unexpected, changes of quality of life : for instance higher satisfaction as far as walking and displacements is concerned for a group of diabetic patients, or as mictions are concerned in enuretic women treated by surgery... 3. It becomes possible to explain these quality of life changes : for instance multiple regression analysis on a sample of 400 individuals showed that the degree of satisfaction with relationships, general activity, sex and digestion, accounted for a significantly large part of the global subjective quality of life (27 % ; p <0.0001) and the introduction of an assessment of the change in individual items did not improve the model ; alternatively, a negative degree of satisfaction concerning pain and tiredness, in patients with myocardial infarction has been explained by the fact that the observed change, although positive, was smaller than the anticipated change ; 4. Finally our approach allows to describe the interaction between a treatment and a patient personality. It is possible to define the typology of patients, in terms of values, i.e. the importance they attribute to each domains of their life, so that the effects on the subjective quality of life of a given treatment can be studied for each type of patient. • (1) Quality of Life Bibliography : Quality of Life Papers by Author. Medical Care December 1990; Vol. 28 N° 12 (suppl.). (2) Wenger N.K, Mattson M.E., Furberg C.D., Elinson J. Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. MTP Press London 1987. (3) Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P., Hanauer M.T., Moleur P., Chauvin F. L’évaluation de la Qualité de la Vie dans les Essais Thérapeutiques. Aspects Conceptuels et Présentation d’un Questionnaire. Thérapie 1989; 44: 355-364. (4) Gerin P., Dazord A., Cialdella P., Leizorovicz A., Boissel J.P. Le Questionnaire “Profil de la Qualité de Vie Subjective” (PQVS). Thérapie 1991; 46: 131-138. (5) Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P., Hanauer M.T. L’Evaluation de la Qualité de la Vie dans les Essais Thérapeutiques. Pharmacologie Clinique : Actualité et Perspective III. G. Strauch, J.M.Husson Eds. Colloque INSERM 1989; Vol. 185: 159-181. (6) Gerin P., Dazord A. L’Evaluation de la Qualité de la Vie Subjective. 4e Entretiens Jacques Cartier Lyon, 15-19 Janvier 1991. (7) Gerin P., Dazord A., Sali A., Boissel J.P. L’Evaluation de la Dépression à la Lumière du Concept de Qualité de la Vie Subjective. Information Psychiatrique 1992 (Ss-Presse). (8) Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P., Chifflet R. Quality of Life Assessment in Therapeutic Trials : Rationale for and Presentation of a More Appropriate Instrument. Fundam. and Clin. Pharmacology 1992 (In Press). (9) Chifflet R., Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P. Essai de Définition de la Structure de la Qualité de la Vie à l’Aide de Techniques d’Analyses de Données. Rev. Stat. Appliquée 1992 (Ss-Presse). (10) Dazord A. L’Evaluation de la Qualité de la Vie Subjective en Psychiatrie. Vis. Dépression; Ed. Interligne 1992; 16: 1-11. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 4 I NSTRUMENTS 9 R E S U LT S Canada USA Quality of Life Assessment In Adult Cystic Fibrosis : the Adult CF Symptoms Index Measuring Health Status of Patients with HIV Disease Using the MOS Short-Form Health Survey By Dr. David A. Haase, FRCP (C), and Patricia Hazell, BSCN, RN, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The growing population of adult cystic fibrosis (CF) patients makes it imperative to address the important issue of quality of life (QOL) in these patients. here is the need for a valid and sensitive measure of symptomatology and functional life-style changes in adult CF patients requiring therapy. T We have developed a self administered disease-specific QOL measure - the Adult CF symptom Index (ACF-SI) for use with adult CF patients. This provides an objective measure of symptomatology with exacerbations of pulmonary disease and a means of assessing the effectiveness of therapy. The initial development of the ACF-SI followed the approach suggested by Guyatt et al. (1). The most important symptoms related to exacerbation of lung disease were determined by survey of patients, significant others (parent, spouse, friend) as well as CF healthcare providers. The symptom evaluation questionnaire included items covering the spectrum of symptoms for all body systems as well as systemic symptoms and questions related to emotional/mental state, social function, and daily activities. Rating of items was done using a 5-point categorical scale. Items which had the highest product of frequency and importance were then selected for the final questionnaire. After literature review and comparison of different types of rating scales, we designed a horizontal 10-point visual graphic numerical rating scale similar to that designed by Schipper et al. (2). The questionnaire contains 20 items printed in an “A” format and a “B” format (order of questions reversed) with each scale anchored at both ends by opposing descriptors. The ACF-SI is a self-administered measure which is readily accepted by patients and easily completed in a few minutes. It contains items which assess the burden of chest disease on the following dimensions : physical, social, mental/emotional, sense of well-being, and activities of daily living. The ratings for each item are summated giving a maximum possible score of 200. Statistical testing for reliability using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was high (0.96) indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Scoring using the ACF-SI is now being compared to scores on the SIP as well as spirometric assessment and a global rating by the attending CF physician. Preliminary data from outpatients and patients admitted for exacerbations of lung disease, show a clear trend with changes in ACF-SI scores reflecting worsening clinical status, and improvement after therapy. In summary, we have developped a diseasespecific QOL measure for use in adult cystic fibrosis patients. It appears to be reliable and sensitive to change in clinical status. Further tests of validity are being undertaken. • (1) Guyatt G.H., Bombardier C., Tugwell P.X. Measuring Disease-Specific Quality of Life in Clinical Trials. Can Med Assoc J. 1986; 134: 889-895. (2) Schipper H., Clinch J., McMurray A., Levitt M. Measuring the Quality of Life in Cancer Patients : The Functional Living Index-Cancer : Development and Validation. J. Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472-483. Address all correspondence to the author at: Victoria General Hospital, 1278 Tower Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 2Y9, Canada. Tel : (1) 902 428-3477 - Fax : (1) 902 428-7094. By John D. Piette, Ph.D., Institute for Health Policy Studies, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA; Vincent Mor, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Health Care Research (CHCR), Brown University; John A. Fleishman, Ph.D., Director of the AIDS Health Services Program Evaluation, CHCR, Brown University ; Tom Wachtel, M.D., Michael Stein, M.D., Brown University School of Medicine, RI, USA. Introduction The Medical Outcome Study 20 item (MOS-20) Health Survey has been effectively used to assess specific health impairments in a number of chronically ill populations. We determined the reliability of the MOS-20 among patients with HIV disease and the clinical, sociodemographic, service need and health service use correlates of MOS scale scores. In addition, we assessed the extent of floor effects for the 5 subscales. Interviews were conducted between 1989 and 1990 with 520 people with HIV disease from eight urban areas of the U.S. All component items of the MOS-20 were included in the interview. All subscales range from zero to 100 with higher values indicating better health. After assessing the reliability of the multi-item subscales, we assessed their construct and discriminate validity through their association with four classes of independent variables : clinical, sociodemographic, service need, and health service use. Results Alpha coefficients of reliability for the four multiitem scales ranged from .82 for mental health to .87 for role functioning. Item-total correlations were generally between .60 and .80; the lowest item-total correlation was .48. PU B L I C A T I O N Quality of Life Bibliography and Indexes. 1990 update. By Bert Spilker, Wendolyn S.A. White, Rolly L. Simpson Jr., and Hugh H. Tilson, Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Published in the Journal of Clinical Research and Pharmacoepidemiology 1992; 6: 87-156. his bibliography is the result of a continuing project at Burroughs Wellcome Co. to identify and collect significant published works on the subject of health-related quality of life. The current bibliography continues and updates the “Quality of Life Bibliography and Indexes” in the December 1990 supplement of Medical Care (Spilker and al., 1990). This update presents information and reference material published since the original bibliography, covering the time period between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990. T As in the original, all references chosen for inclusion must meet at least one of five criteria. These criteria are : 1. works on the topic by established authors in the field; 2. works discussing major instruments; 3. works identifying new instruments; 4. works reporting the use of instruments as end-points in clinical trials; and 5. works discussing the current status of quality of life measurement. The articles must also be written in English. The body of this bibliography consists of standard citations of publications arranged alphabetically by author. Also included are three indexes. These include the Index to Quality of Life Papers by Instrument, the Index to Quality of Life Papers by Therapeutic Category, and the Index to Quality of Life Instruments by Therapeutic Category. As before, the intent of this document is to be inclusive rather than evaluative. The 1991 update is currently in preparation. Address reprint requests to : Bert Spilker, M.D., Ph.D., Director Project Coordination. Burroughs Wellcome Co., 3030 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. Fax : (1) 919 248-8375. Women reported lower mental health scores than men; no other gender differences were observed. History of injected drug use affected health scores across all domains. Pearson correlations between the number of physical symptoms and health scores ranged from - .43 for mental health to - .59 for health perception. Respondents with no physical symptoms had high mean scores in all areas. Frequent neurologic symptoms, constitutional symptoms, dyspnea, weight change, and the number of opportunistic diseases all had profound effects on health scores. No notable associations were observed between health scores and either months since AIDS diagnosis or months since initial report of HIV infection. Mean health scores for respondents with a recent hospital admission ranged from 16.7 for role functioning to 54.5 for mental functioning. The number of outpatient visits in the previous three months was correlated with four subscales : physical function (r= -.12), role function (r= -.12), health perception (r= -.15) and pain (r= -.09). Respondents with greater service need had lower scores across all subscales. For example, respondents with a need for help in applying for entitlements and legal /financial advice had role functioning scores less than half of the score for those with need in neither area (14.9 vs 37.9). The effect of symptoms, weight change, and a history of Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia on PU B L I C A T I O N Books Quality of Life Assessment : Key Issues in the 1990s. Edited by Stuart R. Walker, Director of the Centre for Medicines Research, Carshalton, and Honorary Professor, Welsh School of Pharmacy, Cardiff Wales, and Rachel M. Rosser, Professor of Psychiatry and Head of Department, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London. This book reviews current methodology for assessing the health status of patients - their “quality of life” and shows how this methodology can be applied to specific diseases such as cancer, rhumatoïd arthritis, angina, hypertension and respiratory diseases. The following sections appear in the book : Section I. Philosophics, concepts and Key Instruments Involved in Assessing Quality of Life. Section II. Assessing Quality of Life in Major Disease Areas. Section III. Viewpoints and Perspectives. For further information, please contact : USA/Canada : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358, USA. Fax : (1) 617 871-6528. Rest of the World : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Fax : (31) 78 52 44 74. health subscales remained when simultaneously estimated through least-squares regression models. Recent hospital admission was found to be associated with health perception, physical functioning and role functioning, but not with mental health, pain or social functioning when controlling for clinical condition. Outpatient clinic use was associated only with mental health in the multivariate context; use of an emergency room was strongly associated with pain and social functioning, with little association in other areas. The percentage of respondents with the lowest possible score was high for a number of subscales : role functioning 63 %, social functioning 12 %, physical functioning 13 %. Twenty-six percent of respondents with a score of zero in role functioning also scored zero in pain; 18 % also scored zero in social functioning. Conclusion This study indicated that the MOS Short-Form Health Survey is well suited to assess specific health deficits among people with symptomatic HIV disease. In our study, the pattern of subscore covariation with clinical markers of disease progression and service utilization indicated reasonable construct validation for measuring health status in this population. We were able to demonstrate discriminate validity since only expected subscales varied according to factors such as history of specific opportunistic diseases, gender and service use. We conclude that no modification of the MOS-20 is indicated for use within AIDS clinical research. However, floor effects do pose somewhat of a problem, specifically in the areas of role functioning and pain. Supplementing the MOS-20 with additional questions in these areas as well as information on current patient symptoms may enhance the predictive value of these scores. • Correspondence can be directed to Dr. Piette at : Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 1388 Sutter Street, 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94109. Tel : (1) 415 476-1197 - Fax : (1) 415 476-0705. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 8 INSTRUMENTS I NSTRUMENTS The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQOL) The Netherlands Developing a Quality of Life Questionnaire for Patients with Respiratory Illness. By Ciaran A. O’Boyle, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. A central problem in the assessment of Quality of Life (QOL) is the difficulty of incorporating the perspective of the individual patient into the assessment (1). ost measures impose an external value system on respondents through the use of standardised formats, questions and weightings which are usually derived from grouped data. While such scales, which are more correctly health status scales, fulfil the necessary psychometric criteria, one is often left with the feeling that the essential phenomenology of QOL is not addressed. The SEIQOL is a technique derived from judgement analysis which measures QOL in terms determined entirely by the individual (2). M The first stage of the SEIQOL is a semi-structured interview in which the individual nominates the five areas of life (cues) which they consider most important to their overall QOL. He or she then rates their current status on each cue against a vertical visual analogue scale resulting in a profile of current QOL. At this stage the investigator knows which areas are considered particularly important by the person and the current status in each area. In order to quantify the relative importance (weight) attached to each area by the individual, 30 randomly generated profiles of hypothetical subjects labelled using the five chosen areas are presented and the respondent asked to judge what their global QOL would be for each profile. The weight attached to each cue is calculated by multiple regression. A global score can be derived by multiplying the relevant cue weights by the individual’s current self-rating and summing accross the five cues. The global score therefore incorporates the individual’s current status on each of the five salient variables as well as the relative importance of each of those variables to him or her. The impact of an intervention or an illness can be assessed by means of the cue profile or the global score. As the technique is individually based, it can be used in a wide variety of respondents and conditions and it is not limited to any particular culture or language. We have successfully used the SEIQOL in respondents ranging in age from 18 to 95 years and data have been generated in the following conditions : irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease (2), osteoarthritis (3), hypertension, closed head injury and HIV/AIDS. A cohort of healthy young adults and healthy elderly subjects aged 65 and over have also been studied using a longitudinal design (4). Among the interventions which have been assessed are hip-replacement surgery (3) and the pharmacological treatment of hypertension and gastrointestinal disorders. The SEIQOL shows good reliability and validity in these populations and is sensitive to intervention. We have found that the cognitive impairment associated with dementia of certain degree makes the technique unsuited to this type of patient once the disease has progressed beyond a certain stage (5). Ongoing studies are designed 5 to determine the concordance between QOL judgements of patients and their carers. As the derivation of weights in the SEIQOL can make the technique somewhat cumbersome for use in routine clinical settings, a simplified DISC system has been developed for deriving weights. This has been found to be valid and reliable in the healthy populations studied to date. This DISC technique considerably reduces the complexity of eliciting cue weights with a resultant increase in practicality. It is not intended that the SEIQOL should replace health status measures but that it should be used as an additional measure by researchers who seek to incorporate the perspective of the individual in QOL studies. When the primary focus is the perspective of the patient, the SEIQOL is a more appropriate measure that questionnaire techniques. • (1) O’Boyle C.A. Assessment of Quality of Life in Surgery. Br. J. Surg. 1992; 79: 395-398. (2) McGee H.M., O’Boyle C.A., Hickey A. et al. Assessing Quality of Life of the Individual : the SEIQOL with a Healthy and a Gastroenterology Unit Population. Psychol. Med. 1991; 21: 749-759. (3) O’Boyle C.A., McGee H.M., Hickey A. and al. Individual Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Hip Replacement. The Lancet. 1992; 33: 1088-1091. (4) Browne J.P., O’Boyle C.A., McGee H.M. et al. Individual Quality of Life in the Healthy Elderly. (Submitted for Publication). (5) Coen R., O’Mahony D., O’Boyle C.A. et al. Measuring the Quality of Life of Patients with Dementia Using the SEIQOL. Ir. J. Psychol (In Press). NE W S . . . Change of Address / USA 1. Patricia Ganz, M.D., Associate Director, UCLA Division of Cancer Control, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1100 Glendon Ave. Suite 711, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA. Tel : (1) 310 825 3187 - Fax : (1) 310 206 3566. 2. Marthe R. Gold, M.D., M.P.H., Director Health Policy Studies, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Public Health Service, Switzer 2132, Washington DC 20201 USA. Tel : (1) 202 205 8584 Fax : (1) 202 205 9478. 3. Lisa M. Isaac, Ph.D., 323 Shady Lane, Marlton, New Jersey 08053, USA. Tel : (1) 609 988 0066. 4. Sheldon Xiadong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Administration, College of Pharmacy (m/c 871), The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60680 USA. New position On July 1, 1992, Patricia A. Ganz, M.D., has left her position at the VAMC Sepulveda to become Associate Director at the UCLA Division of Cancer Control. Her academic appointments will be as Professor in both the Department of Health Services, UCLA School of Public Health and the Department of Medicine (Hematology/Oncology), UCLA School of Medicine. By A.R. Maillé, C.J.M. Koning, A.A. Kaptein, Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Leiden, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands. 1 INTRODUCTION 3 In recent years increasing attention has been paid to the assessment of health status and quality of life. Although respiratory illness has an extensive impact on patients’ physical, psychological and social functioning, the use of quality of life instruments in this field of research is relatively limited, and seems to be restricted to patients with rather severe degrees of disease. This made us decide to investigate the quality of life of these patients in more detail, and to develop a disease specific quality of life instrument for patients with asthma and COPD in general practice. ITEM REDUCTION PHASE Items were selected in the following way : ■ each item had to apply to at least 70 % of the respondents ■ in case of an inter-item correlation of .80 or more two items were combined into one. ■ based on factor analysis per subscale, items loading high on the first two or three factors were selected. ■ check for reliability per subscale ■ check for indpendence of subscales (inter-subscale correlation ².80). 4 RESULTS In this way a Quality of Life scale is constructed consisting of 55 items divided in 7 subscales : Breathing problems e.g. have difficulty in breathing in, chest tightness 9 items a .85 9 items a .84 9 items a .88 7 items a .68 10 items a .86 7 items a .89 4 items a .75 Physical problems e.g. wake at night by breathing problems, tiredness Emotions 2 e.g. worried about breathing problems, depressed METHOD Situations Triggering/Enhancing Breathing Problems • Construction of the quality of life scale. Based on a literature review, consultation with health care workers and use of existing instruments we listed 231 items relating to several domains of quality of life (e.g. breathing problems, physical problems, daily and recreational activities, emotions, relationships and sexuality, employment). In order to select the most important items for our patientgroup, patients were asked to fill out on a 7-point Likert-scale, how much of a problem each item had been for them during the las year. • Subjects e.g. in cold weather, by domestic animals Daily and Domestic Activities e.g. have difficulty in going upstairs, in doing the shopping Social Activities, Relationship and Sexuality e.g. visiting friends, have difficulty in cuddling and kissing General Activities e.g. being able to do your daily work, being occupied in leisure interests 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Until now most studies on quality of life in asthma and COPD use general health questionnaires. Some disease-specific questionnaires that take into account the specific symptoms and complaints of the disease, are developed recently. Most of these scales address more severe patients Asthmatic or COPD patients between 18 and 65 years of age in general practice male female age (years) n n M sd. visits in last 12 months to GP M sd. to physician M sd. 59 87 duration of illness (years) M sd. 14.1 13.3 illness severity (degree of dyspnoea*) n 0 41 1 57 2 8 3 14 4 26 % 28.1 39.0 5.5 9.6 17.8 40.6 12.2 3.7 4.6 0.3 0.7 * measured by a translated and adapted version of the MRCQ-questionnaire and only a limited amount of domains of daily life which can be affected by the disease are included. We developed a reliable, disease-specific, multi-domain quality of life questionnaire for patients with asthma and COPD in general practice. At this moment relationships between this scale and patient and disease characteristics are investigated. The constructed scale will be validated in the next months via an additional study in patients from a general practice setting and an out-patient clinic. This study is supported by the Dutch Asthma Foundation (nr. 90.37). • For more information, contact the authors at : Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Leiden, PO Box 1251, 2340 BG, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 6 I NSTRUMENTS METHODS Canada The Causal Process Approach to Quality of Life Two Multi-Attribute Systems for Measuring Health Status and Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life By David Feeny, William Furlong, and George W. Torrance, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 1. The Multi-Attribute Approach Multi-attribute (MA) health status classification systems provide a compact but comprehensive framework within which to describe health status. In a MA system the health status of a person at a point in time is classified in terms of her/his ability to function on each of a set of attributes or dimensions of health status. The ability to function is described by levels that vary from poor to good or normal. In addition, with MA utility functions one can calculate a single summary scores reflecting the health-related quality of life for each health state defined within a MA system. 2. A Brief History of MA Health-Status Classification Systems Rosser and Watts (1) and Kaplan, Bush, and Berry (2) were among the first to devise MA systems. Torrance and colleagues (3) extended the framework of Bush and colleagues. In turn Cadman and Colleagues (4; 5) conducted a study in which parents and children were asked to rate fifteen carefully selected attributes to choose the six most important ones. 3. A new Seven Attribute MA System Recently Feeny, Furlong, and Barr et al (6) devised a seven attribute system for application to the evaluation of treatments for childhood cancer. (A seventh attribute, fertility, was added to the six identified by Cadman et al. to capture sub-fertility sequela). In order to describe a wide range in degree of severity of deficits, three to five levels were defined per attribute. Changes in health status may be assessed by serial applications. Although the seven attribute system was developed for use in pediatric oncology, it is applicable to a wide array of pediatric populations. Furthermore, several investigators have modified the system for use in studies involving adult populations. An important advantage of the MA health status classification approach is that it may be linked to health index scores on the 7 conventional zero (dead) to one (perfect health) scale of health-related quality of life. A MA utility function has already been estimated for the seven attribute system (7). The function was estimated from data taken from interviews with 194 randomly selected members of the general public (parents of school age children in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). 4. A new Eight Attribute MA System More recently an eight MA system has been developed and used in the Ontario Health Survey, a population-based health survey of over 50,000 residents of Ontario, Canada, and in the Statistics Canada General Social Survey, a nation-wide population sample of over 11,000. The eight attributes are : vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, cognition, pain and discomfort, and emotion (8). 5. Uses of MA Systems MA systems, with or without utility scores, can be used in program evaluation and population health studies. Such systems facilitate comparisons of health status over time and space and among selected cohorts (e.g. comparison of specific patient groups with population norms). MA systems are particularly useful for documenting multiple sequelae and the varying levels of severity of deficits in health status. MA health status measurement when linked to MA utility functions allows for the imputation of utility scores of health-related quality of life. • (1) Rosser R.M., and Watts V. The Measurement of Hospital Output. International Journal of Epidemiology 1972; 1: 361-368. (2) Kaplan R.M., Bush J.W., and Berry C.C. Health Status : Types of Validity and the Index of Wellbeing. Health Services Research 1976; 478-507. (3) Torrance G.W., Boyle M.H., and Horwood S.P. Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States.Operations Research 1982; 30: 1043-1069. (4) Cadman D., Goldsmith C., and Bashim P. Values, Preferences, and Decisions in the Care of Children with Developmental Disabilities. Developmental and Behavioural Pediatrics 1984; 5: 60-64. (5) Cadman D., and Goldsmith C. Construction of Social Value or Utility-Based Health Indices : The Usefulness of Factorial Experimental Design Plans. Journal of Chronic Disease 1986; 39: 643-651. (6) Feeny D., Furlong W., Barr R.D., Torrance G.W., Rosenbaum P., Weitzman S. A Comprehensive Multi-Attribute System for Classifying the Health Status of Survivors of Childhood Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992; 10 : 923-928. (7) Torrance G.W., Zhang Y., Feeny D., Furlong W.J., Barr R. Multi-Attribute Preference Functions for A Comprehensive Health Status Classification System. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper. N° 92-18,1992. (8) Furlong W., Feeny D., Torrance G.W., Boyle M., and Horsman J. Design and Pilot Testing of Comprehensive Health-Status Measurement System for the Ontario Health Survey, Final Report for the Ontario Ministry of Health, 1989. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Ronald Barr, Dr. Michael Boyle, John Horsman, Dr. Peter Rosenbaum, Dr. Sheila Weitzman, and Yueming Zhang to this research. For correspondence : David Feeny, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatics, HSC 3H3, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5. NE W S . . . Change of Address / Europe 1. Agnès Leclerq, SESA, Ecole de Santé Publique, UCL, 30,41 Clos Chapelle-auxChamps, 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. 2. Dr. Adrian A. Kaptein, A.R. Maillé, M.A., Leiden University, Department of Psychiatry, Medical Psychology, PO Box 1251, 2340 BG Oegstgeest, the Netherlands. 3. Dr. L.J. Fallowfield, Director, CRC Communication and Counselling, Research Center, the London Hospital, Turner Street, London E12AD, U.K. By Michael E. Hyland Ph.D., Reader in Health Psychology, University of Plymouth, U.K. magine a measure of morbidity where the physician was asked to take the average of the patient’s temperature, blood pressure and pulse rate. This average provides a single measure of morbidity, but a measure of morbidity which was entirely arbitrary, and would never be seriously entertained as a useful measure for understanding disease. I Now suppose that there is a measure of health which was the average of the patient’s symptoms, problems, and mood state. Again one would end up with a single measure of health. I believe that such an aggregated measure of health is just as arbitrary as an aggregated measure of morbidity; but these aggregated health measures are currently universally accepted in quality of life research. For several years I have worked within the conventional framework of quality of life assessment and have constructed instruments which reflect the patient’s own perception of their health problems. Like others, I have aggregated the variety of different perceptions that a patient has into an overall index, which is then used as an outcome measure in a clinical trial. Although such as assessments tell us whether a particular treatment improves quality of life or not, it does not provide information about underlying causal processes. Most researchers into quality of life believe that the patient’s perception is of paramount importance, but often fail to appreciate that perception is not unitary. There is no such thing as a single perception. Instead, patients, like other people, make a variety of different judgements about events in their lives. The multiplicity of judgements made by people is a feature of a variety of psychological theories. Construct theory, for example, suggests that people differ in the judgemental dimensions which are used to appraise any situation. These constructs or judgements need not to be correlated, so that, when applied to health, a patient may make a number of quite distinctly different judgements. The causal process approach to quality of life starts from the premis that there are a number of different kinds of perceptions (or constructs) which are relevant to quality of life (1). The basic model, Figure 1, shows that morbidity can cause the recognition of symptoms depending on certain psychological factors, the symptoms can cause problems and anticipated problems depending on other psychological factors, and the problems and symptoms then cause evaluations (e.g. happiness-unhappiness) depending on yet other psychological factors. Quality of life is thus not a single outcome but a causal process involving an interaction of morbidity and a variety of different psychological variables. If symptoms cause problems, and the problems cause evaluations, it makes little sense to add measures of symptoms, problems and evaluations to produce some overall measure of distress. Distress is actually an evaluation. If one wants to measure distress, then it is possible to do so directly - without having to add in the supposed contribution of symptoms and problems. Indeed, weighting items in terms of perceived distress associated with that item is, from this perspective, meaningless, because the degree of distress caused by a symptom or problem is inextricably linked to personality factors. Figure 1 : Causal Sequence of Psychological Constructs Relevant to Quality of Life. MORBIDITY SYMPTOMS & ANTICIPATED SYMPTOMS PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (TRAIT MOOD) PROBLEMS PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (COPING STYLE) EVALUATION PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (COGNITIVE STYLE) Figure first published in M.E. Hyland. A Reformulation of Quality of Life Medical Science. Quality of Life Research 1992; 1: 267-272, where a more elaborated model also appears. The causal process approach to quality of life provides a fundamental challenge to the way quality of life instruments are currently conceived. Of course, anything that challenges the existing order is likely to be unpopular - but that is no reason for failing to make that challenge. • (1) Hyland M.E. A Reformulation of Quality of Life for Medical Science. Quality of Life Research 1992; 1: 267-272. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 6 I NSTRUMENTS METHODS Canada The Causal Process Approach to Quality of Life Two Multi-Attribute Systems for Measuring Health Status and Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life By David Feeny, William Furlong, and George W. Torrance, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 1. The Multi-Attribute Approach Multi-attribute (MA) health status classification systems provide a compact but comprehensive framework within which to describe health status. In a MA system the health status of a person at a point in time is classified in terms of her/his ability to function on each of a set of attributes or dimensions of health status. The ability to function is described by levels that vary from poor to good or normal. In addition, with MA utility functions one can calculate a single summary scores reflecting the health-related quality of life for each health state defined within a MA system. 2. A Brief History of MA Health-Status Classification Systems Rosser and Watts (1) and Kaplan, Bush, and Berry (2) were among the first to devise MA systems. Torrance and colleagues (3) extended the framework of Bush and colleagues. In turn Cadman and Colleagues (4; 5) conducted a study in which parents and children were asked to rate fifteen carefully selected attributes to choose the six most important ones. 3. A new Seven Attribute MA System Recently Feeny, Furlong, and Barr et al (6) devised a seven attribute system for application to the evaluation of treatments for childhood cancer. (A seventh attribute, fertility, was added to the six identified by Cadman et al. to capture sub-fertility sequela). In order to describe a wide range in degree of severity of deficits, three to five levels were defined per attribute. Changes in health status may be assessed by serial applications. Although the seven attribute system was developed for use in pediatric oncology, it is applicable to a wide array of pediatric populations. Furthermore, several investigators have modified the system for use in studies involving adult populations. An important advantage of the MA health status classification approach is that it may be linked to health index scores on the 7 conventional zero (dead) to one (perfect health) scale of health-related quality of life. A MA utility function has already been estimated for the seven attribute system (7). The function was estimated from data taken from interviews with 194 randomly selected members of the general public (parents of school age children in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). 4. A new Eight Attribute MA System More recently an eight MA system has been developed and used in the Ontario Health Survey, a population-based health survey of over 50,000 residents of Ontario, Canada, and in the Statistics Canada General Social Survey, a nation-wide population sample of over 11,000. The eight attributes are : vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, cognition, pain and discomfort, and emotion (8). 5. Uses of MA Systems MA systems, with or without utility scores, can be used in program evaluation and population health studies. Such systems facilitate comparisons of health status over time and space and among selected cohorts (e.g. comparison of specific patient groups with population norms). MA systems are particularly useful for documenting multiple sequelae and the varying levels of severity of deficits in health status. MA health status measurement when linked to MA utility functions allows for the imputation of utility scores of health-related quality of life. • (1) Rosser R.M., and Watts V. The Measurement of Hospital Output. International Journal of Epidemiology 1972; 1: 361-368. (2) Kaplan R.M., Bush J.W., and Berry C.C. Health Status : Types of Validity and the Index of Wellbeing. Health Services Research 1976; 478-507. (3) Torrance G.W., Boyle M.H., and Horwood S.P. Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States.Operations Research 1982; 30: 1043-1069. (4) Cadman D., Goldsmith C., and Bashim P. Values, Preferences, and Decisions in the Care of Children with Developmental Disabilities. Developmental and Behavioural Pediatrics 1984; 5: 60-64. (5) Cadman D., and Goldsmith C. Construction of Social Value or Utility-Based Health Indices : The Usefulness of Factorial Experimental Design Plans. Journal of Chronic Disease 1986; 39: 643-651. (6) Feeny D., Furlong W., Barr R.D., Torrance G.W., Rosenbaum P., Weitzman S. A Comprehensive Multi-Attribute System for Classifying the Health Status of Survivors of Childhood Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992; 10 : 923-928. (7) Torrance G.W., Zhang Y., Feeny D., Furlong W.J., Barr R. Multi-Attribute Preference Functions for A Comprehensive Health Status Classification System. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper. N° 92-18,1992. (8) Furlong W., Feeny D., Torrance G.W., Boyle M., and Horsman J. Design and Pilot Testing of Comprehensive Health-Status Measurement System for the Ontario Health Survey, Final Report for the Ontario Ministry of Health, 1989. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Ronald Barr, Dr. Michael Boyle, John Horsman, Dr. Peter Rosenbaum, Dr. Sheila Weitzman, and Yueming Zhang to this research. For correspondence : David Feeny, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatics, HSC 3H3, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5. NE W S . . . Change of Address / Europe 1. Agnès Leclerq, SESA, Ecole de Santé Publique, UCL, 30,41 Clos Chapelle-auxChamps, 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. 2. Dr. Adrian A. Kaptein, A.R. Maillé, M.A., Leiden University, Department of Psychiatry, Medical Psychology, PO Box 1251, 2340 BG Oegstgeest, the Netherlands. 3. Dr. L.J. Fallowfield, Director, CRC Communication and Counselling, Research Center, the London Hospital, Turner Street, London E12AD, U.K. By Michael E. Hyland Ph.D., Reader in Health Psychology, University of Plymouth, U.K. magine a measure of morbidity where the physician was asked to take the average of the patient’s temperature, blood pressure and pulse rate. This average provides a single measure of morbidity, but a measure of morbidity which was entirely arbitrary, and would never be seriously entertained as a useful measure for understanding disease. I Now suppose that there is a measure of health which was the average of the patient’s symptoms, problems, and mood state. Again one would end up with a single measure of health. I believe that such an aggregated measure of health is just as arbitrary as an aggregated measure of morbidity; but these aggregated health measures are currently universally accepted in quality of life research. For several years I have worked within the conventional framework of quality of life assessment and have constructed instruments which reflect the patient’s own perception of their health problems. Like others, I have aggregated the variety of different perceptions that a patient has into an overall index, which is then used as an outcome measure in a clinical trial. Although such as assessments tell us whether a particular treatment improves quality of life or not, it does not provide information about underlying causal processes. Most researchers into quality of life believe that the patient’s perception is of paramount importance, but often fail to appreciate that perception is not unitary. There is no such thing as a single perception. Instead, patients, like other people, make a variety of different judgements about events in their lives. The multiplicity of judgements made by people is a feature of a variety of psychological theories. Construct theory, for example, suggests that people differ in the judgemental dimensions which are used to appraise any situation. These constructs or judgements need not to be correlated, so that, when applied to health, a patient may make a number of quite distinctly different judgements. The causal process approach to quality of life starts from the premis that there are a number of different kinds of perceptions (or constructs) which are relevant to quality of life (1). The basic model, Figure 1, shows that morbidity can cause the recognition of symptoms depending on certain psychological factors, the symptoms can cause problems and anticipated problems depending on other psychological factors, and the problems and symptoms then cause evaluations (e.g. happiness-unhappiness) depending on yet other psychological factors. Quality of life is thus not a single outcome but a causal process involving an interaction of morbidity and a variety of different psychological variables. If symptoms cause problems, and the problems cause evaluations, it makes little sense to add measures of symptoms, problems and evaluations to produce some overall measure of distress. Distress is actually an evaluation. If one wants to measure distress, then it is possible to do so directly - without having to add in the supposed contribution of symptoms and problems. Indeed, weighting items in terms of perceived distress associated with that item is, from this perspective, meaningless, because the degree of distress caused by a symptom or problem is inextricably linked to personality factors. Figure 1 : Causal Sequence of Psychological Constructs Relevant to Quality of Life. MORBIDITY SYMPTOMS & ANTICIPATED SYMPTOMS PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (TRAIT MOOD) PROBLEMS PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (COPING STYLE) EVALUATION PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS (COGNITIVE STYLE) Figure first published in M.E. Hyland. A Reformulation of Quality of Life Medical Science. Quality of Life Research 1992; 1: 267-272, where a more elaborated model also appears. The causal process approach to quality of life provides a fundamental challenge to the way quality of life instruments are currently conceived. Of course, anything that challenges the existing order is likely to be unpopular - but that is no reason for failing to make that challenge. • (1) Hyland M.E. A Reformulation of Quality of Life for Medical Science. Quality of Life Research 1992; 1: 267-272. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 8 INSTRUMENTS I NSTRUMENTS The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQOL) The Netherlands Developing a Quality of Life Questionnaire for Patients with Respiratory Illness. By Ciaran A. O’Boyle, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. A central problem in the assessment of Quality of Life (QOL) is the difficulty of incorporating the perspective of the individual patient into the assessment (1). ost measures impose an external value system on respondents through the use of standardised formats, questions and weightings which are usually derived from grouped data. While such scales, which are more correctly health status scales, fulfil the necessary psychometric criteria, one is often left with the feeling that the essential phenomenology of QOL is not addressed. The SEIQOL is a technique derived from judgement analysis which measures QOL in terms determined entirely by the individual (2). M The first stage of the SEIQOL is a semi-structured interview in which the individual nominates the five areas of life (cues) which they consider most important to their overall QOL. He or she then rates their current status on each cue against a vertical visual analogue scale resulting in a profile of current QOL. At this stage the investigator knows which areas are considered particularly important by the person and the current status in each area. In order to quantify the relative importance (weight) attached to each area by the individual, 30 randomly generated profiles of hypothetical subjects labelled using the five chosen areas are presented and the respondent asked to judge what their global QOL would be for each profile. The weight attached to each cue is calculated by multiple regression. A global score can be derived by multiplying the relevant cue weights by the individual’s current self-rating and summing accross the five cues. The global score therefore incorporates the individual’s current status on each of the five salient variables as well as the relative importance of each of those variables to him or her. The impact of an intervention or an illness can be assessed by means of the cue profile or the global score. As the technique is individually based, it can be used in a wide variety of respondents and conditions and it is not limited to any particular culture or language. We have successfully used the SEIQOL in respondents ranging in age from 18 to 95 years and data have been generated in the following conditions : irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease (2), osteoarthritis (3), hypertension, closed head injury and HIV/AIDS. A cohort of healthy young adults and healthy elderly subjects aged 65 and over have also been studied using a longitudinal design (4). Among the interventions which have been assessed are hip-replacement surgery (3) and the pharmacological treatment of hypertension and gastrointestinal disorders. The SEIQOL shows good reliability and validity in these populations and is sensitive to intervention. We have found that the cognitive impairment associated with dementia of certain degree makes the technique unsuited to this type of patient once the disease has progressed beyond a certain stage (5). Ongoing studies are designed 5 to determine the concordance between QOL judgements of patients and their carers. As the derivation of weights in the SEIQOL can make the technique somewhat cumbersome for use in routine clinical settings, a simplified DISC system has been developed for deriving weights. This has been found to be valid and reliable in the healthy populations studied to date. This DISC technique considerably reduces the complexity of eliciting cue weights with a resultant increase in practicality. It is not intended that the SEIQOL should replace health status measures but that it should be used as an additional measure by researchers who seek to incorporate the perspective of the individual in QOL studies. When the primary focus is the perspective of the patient, the SEIQOL is a more appropriate measure that questionnaire techniques. • (1) O’Boyle C.A. Assessment of Quality of Life in Surgery. Br. J. Surg. 1992; 79: 395-398. (2) McGee H.M., O’Boyle C.A., Hickey A. et al. Assessing Quality of Life of the Individual : the SEIQOL with a Healthy and a Gastroenterology Unit Population. Psychol. Med. 1991; 21: 749-759. (3) O’Boyle C.A., McGee H.M., Hickey A. and al. Individual Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Hip Replacement. The Lancet. 1992; 33: 1088-1091. (4) Browne J.P., O’Boyle C.A., McGee H.M. et al. Individual Quality of Life in the Healthy Elderly. (Submitted for Publication). (5) Coen R., O’Mahony D., O’Boyle C.A. et al. Measuring the Quality of Life of Patients with Dementia Using the SEIQOL. Ir. J. Psychol (In Press). NE W S . . . Change of Address / USA 1. Patricia Ganz, M.D., Associate Director, UCLA Division of Cancer Control, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1100 Glendon Ave. Suite 711, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA. Tel : (1) 310 825 3187 - Fax : (1) 310 206 3566. 2. Marthe R. Gold, M.D., M.P.H., Director Health Policy Studies, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Public Health Service, Switzer 2132, Washington DC 20201 USA. Tel : (1) 202 205 8584 Fax : (1) 202 205 9478. 3. Lisa M. Isaac, Ph.D., 323 Shady Lane, Marlton, New Jersey 08053, USA. Tel : (1) 609 988 0066. 4. Sheldon Xiadong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Administration, College of Pharmacy (m/c 871), The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60680 USA. New position On July 1, 1992, Patricia A. Ganz, M.D., has left her position at the VAMC Sepulveda to become Associate Director at the UCLA Division of Cancer Control. Her academic appointments will be as Professor in both the Department of Health Services, UCLA School of Public Health and the Department of Medicine (Hematology/Oncology), UCLA School of Medicine. By A.R. Maillé, C.J.M. Koning, A.A. Kaptein, Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Leiden, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands. 1 INTRODUCTION 3 In recent years increasing attention has been paid to the assessment of health status and quality of life. Although respiratory illness has an extensive impact on patients’ physical, psychological and social functioning, the use of quality of life instruments in this field of research is relatively limited, and seems to be restricted to patients with rather severe degrees of disease. This made us decide to investigate the quality of life of these patients in more detail, and to develop a disease specific quality of life instrument for patients with asthma and COPD in general practice. ITEM REDUCTION PHASE Items were selected in the following way : ■ each item had to apply to at least 70 % of the respondents ■ in case of an inter-item correlation of .80 or more two items were combined into one. ■ based on factor analysis per subscale, items loading high on the first two or three factors were selected. ■ check for reliability per subscale ■ check for indpendence of subscales (inter-subscale correlation ².80). 4 RESULTS In this way a Quality of Life scale is constructed consisting of 55 items divided in 7 subscales : Breathing problems e.g. have difficulty in breathing in, chest tightness 9 items a .85 9 items a .84 9 items a .88 7 items a .68 10 items a .86 7 items a .89 4 items a .75 Physical problems e.g. wake at night by breathing problems, tiredness Emotions 2 e.g. worried about breathing problems, depressed METHOD Situations Triggering/Enhancing Breathing Problems • Construction of the quality of life scale. Based on a literature review, consultation with health care workers and use of existing instruments we listed 231 items relating to several domains of quality of life (e.g. breathing problems, physical problems, daily and recreational activities, emotions, relationships and sexuality, employment). In order to select the most important items for our patientgroup, patients were asked to fill out on a 7-point Likert-scale, how much of a problem each item had been for them during the las year. • Subjects e.g. in cold weather, by domestic animals Daily and Domestic Activities e.g. have difficulty in going upstairs, in doing the shopping Social Activities, Relationship and Sexuality e.g. visiting friends, have difficulty in cuddling and kissing General Activities e.g. being able to do your daily work, being occupied in leisure interests 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Until now most studies on quality of life in asthma and COPD use general health questionnaires. Some disease-specific questionnaires that take into account the specific symptoms and complaints of the disease, are developed recently. Most of these scales address more severe patients Asthmatic or COPD patients between 18 and 65 years of age in general practice male female age (years) n n M sd. visits in last 12 months to GP M sd. to physician M sd. 59 87 duration of illness (years) M sd. 14.1 13.3 illness severity (degree of dyspnoea*) n 0 41 1 57 2 8 3 14 4 26 % 28.1 39.0 5.5 9.6 17.8 40.6 12.2 3.7 4.6 0.3 0.7 * measured by a translated and adapted version of the MRCQ-questionnaire and only a limited amount of domains of daily life which can be affected by the disease are included. We developed a reliable, disease-specific, multi-domain quality of life questionnaire for patients with asthma and COPD in general practice. At this moment relationships between this scale and patient and disease characteristics are investigated. The constructed scale will be validated in the next months via an additional study in patients from a general practice setting and an out-patient clinic. This study is supported by the Dutch Asthma Foundation (nr. 90.37). • For more information, contact the authors at : Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Leiden, PO Box 1251, 2340 BG, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 4 I NSTRUMENTS 9 R E S U LT S Canada USA Quality of Life Assessment In Adult Cystic Fibrosis : the Adult CF Symptoms Index Measuring Health Status of Patients with HIV Disease Using the MOS Short-Form Health Survey By Dr. David A. Haase, FRCP (C), and Patricia Hazell, BSCN, RN, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The growing population of adult cystic fibrosis (CF) patients makes it imperative to address the important issue of quality of life (QOL) in these patients. here is the need for a valid and sensitive measure of symptomatology and functional life-style changes in adult CF patients requiring therapy. T We have developed a self administered disease-specific QOL measure - the Adult CF symptom Index (ACF-SI) for use with adult CF patients. This provides an objective measure of symptomatology with exacerbations of pulmonary disease and a means of assessing the effectiveness of therapy. The initial development of the ACF-SI followed the approach suggested by Guyatt et al. (1). The most important symptoms related to exacerbation of lung disease were determined by survey of patients, significant others (parent, spouse, friend) as well as CF healthcare providers. The symptom evaluation questionnaire included items covering the spectrum of symptoms for all body systems as well as systemic symptoms and questions related to emotional/mental state, social function, and daily activities. Rating of items was done using a 5-point categorical scale. Items which had the highest product of frequency and importance were then selected for the final questionnaire. After literature review and comparison of different types of rating scales, we designed a horizontal 10-point visual graphic numerical rating scale similar to that designed by Schipper et al. (2). The questionnaire contains 20 items printed in an “A” format and a “B” format (order of questions reversed) with each scale anchored at both ends by opposing descriptors. The ACF-SI is a self-administered measure which is readily accepted by patients and easily completed in a few minutes. It contains items which assess the burden of chest disease on the following dimensions : physical, social, mental/emotional, sense of well-being, and activities of daily living. The ratings for each item are summated giving a maximum possible score of 200. Statistical testing for reliability using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was high (0.96) indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Scoring using the ACF-SI is now being compared to scores on the SIP as well as spirometric assessment and a global rating by the attending CF physician. Preliminary data from outpatients and patients admitted for exacerbations of lung disease, show a clear trend with changes in ACF-SI scores reflecting worsening clinical status, and improvement after therapy. In summary, we have developped a diseasespecific QOL measure for use in adult cystic fibrosis patients. It appears to be reliable and sensitive to change in clinical status. Further tests of validity are being undertaken. • (1) Guyatt G.H., Bombardier C., Tugwell P.X. Measuring Disease-Specific Quality of Life in Clinical Trials. Can Med Assoc J. 1986; 134: 889-895. (2) Schipper H., Clinch J., McMurray A., Levitt M. Measuring the Quality of Life in Cancer Patients : The Functional Living Index-Cancer : Development and Validation. J. Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472-483. Address all correspondence to the author at: Victoria General Hospital, 1278 Tower Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 2Y9, Canada. Tel : (1) 902 428-3477 - Fax : (1) 902 428-7094. By John D. Piette, Ph.D., Institute for Health Policy Studies, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA; Vincent Mor, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Health Care Research (CHCR), Brown University; John A. Fleishman, Ph.D., Director of the AIDS Health Services Program Evaluation, CHCR, Brown University ; Tom Wachtel, M.D., Michael Stein, M.D., Brown University School of Medicine, RI, USA. Introduction The Medical Outcome Study 20 item (MOS-20) Health Survey has been effectively used to assess specific health impairments in a number of chronically ill populations. We determined the reliability of the MOS-20 among patients with HIV disease and the clinical, sociodemographic, service need and health service use correlates of MOS scale scores. In addition, we assessed the extent of floor effects for the 5 subscales. Interviews were conducted between 1989 and 1990 with 520 people with HIV disease from eight urban areas of the U.S. All component items of the MOS-20 were included in the interview. All subscales range from zero to 100 with higher values indicating better health. After assessing the reliability of the multi-item subscales, we assessed their construct and discriminate validity through their association with four classes of independent variables : clinical, sociodemographic, service need, and health service use. Results Alpha coefficients of reliability for the four multiitem scales ranged from .82 for mental health to .87 for role functioning. Item-total correlations were generally between .60 and .80; the lowest item-total correlation was .48. PU B L I C A T I O N Quality of Life Bibliography and Indexes. 1990 update. By Bert Spilker, Wendolyn S.A. White, Rolly L. Simpson Jr., and Hugh H. Tilson, Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Published in the Journal of Clinical Research and Pharmacoepidemiology 1992; 6: 87-156. his bibliography is the result of a continuing project at Burroughs Wellcome Co. to identify and collect significant published works on the subject of health-related quality of life. The current bibliography continues and updates the “Quality of Life Bibliography and Indexes” in the December 1990 supplement of Medical Care (Spilker and al., 1990). This update presents information and reference material published since the original bibliography, covering the time period between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990. T As in the original, all references chosen for inclusion must meet at least one of five criteria. These criteria are : 1. works on the topic by established authors in the field; 2. works discussing major instruments; 3. works identifying new instruments; 4. works reporting the use of instruments as end-points in clinical trials; and 5. works discussing the current status of quality of life measurement. The articles must also be written in English. The body of this bibliography consists of standard citations of publications arranged alphabetically by author. Also included are three indexes. These include the Index to Quality of Life Papers by Instrument, the Index to Quality of Life Papers by Therapeutic Category, and the Index to Quality of Life Instruments by Therapeutic Category. As before, the intent of this document is to be inclusive rather than evaluative. The 1991 update is currently in preparation. Address reprint requests to : Bert Spilker, M.D., Ph.D., Director Project Coordination. Burroughs Wellcome Co., 3030 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. Fax : (1) 919 248-8375. Women reported lower mental health scores than men; no other gender differences were observed. History of injected drug use affected health scores across all domains. Pearson correlations between the number of physical symptoms and health scores ranged from - .43 for mental health to - .59 for health perception. Respondents with no physical symptoms had high mean scores in all areas. Frequent neurologic symptoms, constitutional symptoms, dyspnea, weight change, and the number of opportunistic diseases all had profound effects on health scores. No notable associations were observed between health scores and either months since AIDS diagnosis or months since initial report of HIV infection. Mean health scores for respondents with a recent hospital admission ranged from 16.7 for role functioning to 54.5 for mental functioning. The number of outpatient visits in the previous three months was correlated with four subscales : physical function (r= -.12), role function (r= -.12), health perception (r= -.15) and pain (r= -.09). Respondents with greater service need had lower scores across all subscales. For example, respondents with a need for help in applying for entitlements and legal /financial advice had role functioning scores less than half of the score for those with need in neither area (14.9 vs 37.9). The effect of symptoms, weight change, and a history of Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia on PU B L I C A T I O N Books Quality of Life Assessment : Key Issues in the 1990s. Edited by Stuart R. Walker, Director of the Centre for Medicines Research, Carshalton, and Honorary Professor, Welsh School of Pharmacy, Cardiff Wales, and Rachel M. Rosser, Professor of Psychiatry and Head of Department, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London. This book reviews current methodology for assessing the health status of patients - their “quality of life” and shows how this methodology can be applied to specific diseases such as cancer, rhumatoïd arthritis, angina, hypertension and respiratory diseases. The following sections appear in the book : Section I. Philosophics, concepts and Key Instruments Involved in Assessing Quality of Life. Section II. Assessing Quality of Life in Major Disease Areas. Section III. Viewpoints and Perspectives. For further information, please contact : USA/Canada : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358, USA. Fax : (1) 617 871-6528. Rest of the World : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Fax : (31) 78 52 44 74. health subscales remained when simultaneously estimated through least-squares regression models. Recent hospital admission was found to be associated with health perception, physical functioning and role functioning, but not with mental health, pain or social functioning when controlling for clinical condition. Outpatient clinic use was associated only with mental health in the multivariate context; use of an emergency room was strongly associated with pain and social functioning, with little association in other areas. The percentage of respondents with the lowest possible score was high for a number of subscales : role functioning 63 %, social functioning 12 %, physical functioning 13 %. Twenty-six percent of respondents with a score of zero in role functioning also scored zero in pain; 18 % also scored zero in social functioning. Conclusion This study indicated that the MOS Short-Form Health Survey is well suited to assess specific health deficits among people with symptomatic HIV disease. In our study, the pattern of subscore covariation with clinical markers of disease progression and service utilization indicated reasonable construct validation for measuring health status in this population. We were able to demonstrate discriminate validity since only expected subscales varied according to factors such as history of specific opportunistic diseases, gender and service use. We conclude that no modification of the MOS-20 is indicated for use within AIDS clinical research. However, floor effects do pose somewhat of a problem, specifically in the areas of role functioning and pain. Supplementing the MOS-20 with additional questions in these areas as well as information on current patient symptoms may enhance the predictive value of these scores. • Correspondence can be directed to Dr. Piette at : Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 1388 Sutter Street, 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94109. Tel : (1) 415 476-1197 - Fax : (1) 415 476-0705. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 10 WORK 3 I NSTRUMENTS IN PROGRESS Worldwide France International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project A New Instrument to Assess the Subjective Quality of Life of Patients : the Subjective Quality of Life Questionnaire (SQLP) By Barbara Gandek, New England Medical Center Hospitals, Boston, MA, USA By A. Dazord, P. Gerin, SCRIPT-Inserm, Hôpital St Jean de Dieu, Lyon, and J.P. Boissel, Unité de Pharmacologie Clinique, Lyon, France. A project is underway to translate and adapt the MOS SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in up to 15 countries for use in international studies of health outcomes. QOLA is a 4-year project to translate and adapt the widely-used MOS SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in up to 15 countries and validate, norm, and document the new translations as required for their use in clinical trials and health care policy studies. I In addition to the eight-scale SF-36 health profile, the project will also validate psychometrically-based physical and mental health summary scores, as well as health utility indexes incorporating SF-36 scales for use in cost-utility studies. The SF-36 was developed over the past ten years, using questionnaires and data from the Medical Outcomes Study (1-5). It contains 36 items measuring physical and mental functioning, social and role disability, and general health perceptions. The SF-36 currently is being used by more than 100 health care delivery organizations and in numerous English-language clinical trials. Although only the U.S.-English version of the SF-36 has been published and validated, studies underway in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (6) have demonstrated the feasibility of achieving valid translations. These studies underscore the importance of standardized procedures of translation and linguistic evaluation, as well as rigorous psychometric and clinical validation of forms to be used in multiple languages (see, for example, the formal tests of measurement models reported in (7) for the Chinese translation of the Mental Health Inventory). IQOLA Project translations and/or Eglishlanguage adaptations currently are underway in : Australia, Canada (English-Canadian and French-Canadian), France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Additional translations are planned for other countries, including Belgium. Within each country, a standard procedure of forward and backward translation, review by representative focus groups, and formal evaluation of the quality of the translation is being conducted. Data from clinical trials and other studies will be used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated forms, using standard psychometric techniques of reliability and validity assessment, including empirical tests of validity in relation to clinical status. The measures will be refined in an iterative cycle to enhance their quality and to evaluate crosscultural empirical validity. Additional project goals include : construction of psychometrically-based physical and mental health summary scores and health utility indexes that incorporates the SF-36 for use in cost-utility and other economic evaluations; collection of general population norms for each country; and preparation of user’s manuals and computerized scoring software that document how to administer, score, analyze, and interpret SF-36 scales, summary scales and index scores in each country. • ■ Principal sponsors of the IQOLA Project are Glaxo Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation. Additional sponsors will be announced soon. ■ The IQOLA Project is directed by John E. Ware, Ph.D., at the Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals. IQOLA include an internationally recognized team of collaborators, including : Neil K. Aaronson, Ph.D., The Netherlands Cancer Institute, The Netherlands; Jordi Alonso, M.D., Ph.D., Institute of Medical Research, Spain; Giovanni Apolone, M.D., Mario Negri Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, Italy; Denis Bucquet, M.D., National Institute for Health and Medical Research, France; Monika Bullinger, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Psychology, Germany; Shunichi Fukuhara, M.D., M.S.C., The University of Tokyo, Japan; Rob Sanson-Fisher, Ph.D., University of Newcastle, Australia; Marianne Sullivan, Ph.D., Sahlgrenska Hospital, Sweden; and Sharon Wood-Dauphinee, Ph.D., McGill University, Canada. ■ Project administrative and scientific activities in the United States are coordinated by Barbara Gandek, M.S. and other NEMCH staff, including Kathleen M. Bungay, Pharm.D., San Keller, Ph.D. Cand., and Anita Wagner, Pharm.D. Cand., at The Health Institute, NEMCH-Box 345, 750 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, FAX (617) 3508077. Project activities in Europe are coordinated by Catherine Acquadro, M.D. at MAPI, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France, FAX (33) 78 53 67 61. (1) Ware J.E. and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Medical Care 1992; 30(6): 473-483. (2) McHorney C.A., Ware J.E., Rogers W., Raczek A.E., Lu J.F.R. The Validity and Relative Precision of MOS Short and Long-Form Health Status Scales and Darmouth COOP Charts : Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care 1992; 30(5): MS253-MS265. (3) McHorney C.A., Ware J.E., Raczek A.E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and Clinical Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and Mental Health Constructs. Forthcoming. (4) Ware J.E. and McHorney C.A. The SF-36 Health Status Survey: Brief Overview. Quality of Life Newsletter 1991; 1:4. (5) Stewart A.L. and Ware J.E. (eds). Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, N.C., Duke University Press, 1992. (6) Brazier J.E., Harper R., Jones N.M.B., et al. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire : New Outcomes Measure for Primary Care. British Medical Journal 1992; 305: 160-164. (7) Liang J., Wu S.C., Krause N.M., Chiang T.L., Wu H.Y. The Structure of Mental Health Inventory Among Chinese in Taïwan. Medical Care 1992; 30(8): 659-676. Although an individual’s inner experience is not independent of the concrete context of his life (i.e. objective quality of life, ranging from health status to material considerations, including functional capabilities) it cannot be reliably deduced from it. his suggest that the subjective quality of life should be assessed directly ; while the study of the objective quality of life is possible with many existing methods or instruments (1-2), the use of subjective quality of life requires a specific model. We have developed therefore a new questionnaire which has been validated on several sample population (1000 to 1500 individuals) (3-10). It is a self administered questionnaire, in which each main dimension of the subjective quality of life is independently assessed in order to take into consideration the complexity of the situation. Therefore the presentation of results is more appropriate in the form of profiles rather than indices. T The variables (or domains of life to be explored) include : 1. Functional life : motor, psychological, sensory, sexual, sleep, digestion, pain....; 2. Social life : relationships, social roles, interest in the exterior world : 3. Material life; 4. Spiritual life : ability to live esthetic or religious experience, thinking.... ■ The measures to be used for the various items are the following : 1. Ability (or change) ; 2. Degree of satisfaction which is essential for the subjective quality of life assessment ; 3. Importance attributed : the direct assessment of the subjective importance attributed to the various domains of life by the individual is useful if we want to explain the level of the subjective quality of life ; 4. Patients’ expectations at the beginning of a treatment : disappointement because the effective change does not match up the anticipated change, can explain what may seem a paradoxical impairement of the subjective quality of life (negative degree of satisfaction concomitantly with a positive change in the degree of ability) ; 5. Ability to cope : here we deal with another important factor as far as the relationship between the objective and subjective quality of life is concerned. ■ Concerning the validation : Principal component analysis showed that the questionnaire assesses not only health but also relationships and interest in the external world. The internal consistency was shown to be good (Cronbach alpha 0.9) ; The various type of questions were not confused as shown by inter-item correlation studies. Test-retest correlations were satisfactory and acceptability very high. Finally some meaningful correlations were found with other scales like Karnovsky (in the case of patients with cancer), or MADRS (in the case of depressed patients). ■ Results The results obtained were interesting in many aspects : 1. They allow to define different profiles of patients’ quality of life according to their pathology : depressed patients were very dissatisfied with their health, while patients with lung cancer complained about leisures... 2. One can detect after treatments, some very specific, sometimes unexpected, changes of quality of life : for instance higher satisfaction as far as walking and displacements is concerned for a group of diabetic patients, or as mictions are concerned in enuretic women treated by surgery... 3. It becomes possible to explain these quality of life changes : for instance multiple regression analysis on a sample of 400 individuals showed that the degree of satisfaction with relationships, general activity, sex and digestion, accounted for a significantly large part of the global subjective quality of life (27 % ; p <0.0001) and the introduction of an assessment of the change in individual items did not improve the model ; alternatively, a negative degree of satisfaction concerning pain and tiredness, in patients with myocardial infarction has been explained by the fact that the observed change, although positive, was smaller than the anticipated change ; 4. Finally our approach allows to describe the interaction between a treatment and a patient personality. It is possible to define the typology of patients, in terms of values, i.e. the importance they attribute to each domains of their life, so that the effects on the subjective quality of life of a given treatment can be studied for each type of patient. • (1) Quality of Life Bibliography : Quality of Life Papers by Author. Medical Care December 1990; Vol. 28 N° 12 (suppl.). (2) Wenger N.K, Mattson M.E., Furberg C.D., Elinson J. Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. MTP Press London 1987. (3) Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P., Hanauer M.T., Moleur P., Chauvin F. L’évaluation de la Qualité de la Vie dans les Essais Thérapeutiques. Aspects Conceptuels et Présentation d’un Questionnaire. Thérapie 1989; 44: 355-364. (4) Gerin P., Dazord A., Cialdella P., Leizorovicz A., Boissel J.P. Le Questionnaire “Profil de la Qualité de Vie Subjective” (PQVS). Thérapie 1991; 46: 131-138. (5) Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P., Hanauer M.T. L’Evaluation de la Qualité de la Vie dans les Essais Thérapeutiques. Pharmacologie Clinique : Actualité et Perspective III. G. Strauch, J.M.Husson Eds. Colloque INSERM 1989; Vol. 185: 159-181. (6) Gerin P., Dazord A. L’Evaluation de la Qualité de la Vie Subjective. 4e Entretiens Jacques Cartier Lyon, 15-19 Janvier 1991. (7) Gerin P., Dazord A., Sali A., Boissel J.P. L’Evaluation de la Dépression à la Lumière du Concept de Qualité de la Vie Subjective. Information Psychiatrique 1992 (Ss-Presse). (8) Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P., Chifflet R. Quality of Life Assessment in Therapeutic Trials : Rationale for and Presentation of a More Appropriate Instrument. Fundam. and Clin. Pharmacology 1992 (In Press). (9) Chifflet R., Gerin P., Dazord A., Boissel J.P. Essai de Définition de la Structure de la Qualité de la Vie à l’Aide de Techniques d’Analyses de Données. Rev. Stat. Appliquée 1992 (Ss-Presse). (10) Dazord A. L’Evaluation de la Qualité de la Vie Subjective en Psychiatrie. Vis. Dépression; Ed. Interligne 1992; 16: 1-11. QOL QOL NEWS LETTER 2 METHODS WO R K Assessing Quality of Life and Quality of Medical Services for People with Epilepsy (continued) Agreement was reached on minimum criteria to evaluate cross national HRQL measures for clinical trials. Optimal criteria include reliability; validity; especially construct validity; responsiveness to change; and interpretation that is, by what methodology and scoring mechanism is the data understandable ? In the future, researchers ought to strive to satisfy all optimal criteria within the country in which the measure is developed prior to its translation and cultural adaptation elsewhere. For the present, however, it was agreed that research using a HRQL instrument can proceed if, at a minimum, the instrument has been shown to be reliable and valid in the host country and it has been translated using appropriate techniques. Evidence to provide further support of psychometric properties can be built into the clinical trial. The process by which measures are culturally adapted ought to include use of focus groups Choice of a HRQL measure for a clinical trial is dependent upon a number of variables within the nature and design of the experiment. Perhaps the most important consideration is the condition or disease itself, particularly its natural history and sequelae. Characteristics of the population to be accrued into the trial, such as its age and disease status, are necessary to interpret the HRQL results of the intervention. Knowledge of the intervention itself - how its side effects differ from the sequelae of the disease under treatment - requires careful thought and understanding prior to selection or development of the instrument. In conclusion, agreement was reached on a number of critical issues affecting present and future HRQL cross national research. In the short term, it is the intent of the Board of Advisors to apply these criteria in a continuing review of generic and disease-specific cross national measures, and to identify those measures that best meet these guidelines for future research needs. Instruments now in use may require refinement in consideration of cross national differences. However, it was the recommendation of the Board that current research should continue with available measures that best meet these guidelines at the same time that future instrument development to meet optimal criteria proceeds. It is understood that evaluative criteria will undergo refinement as this field matures. A full summation of this meeting will appear in a forthcoming special issue of Quality of Life Research. By Gus Baker, Department of Neurosciences, Walton Hospital, Liverpool, and Ann Jacoby, Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. (1) International Board of Advisors : Neil K. Aaronson, Ph.D., the Netherlands; Marilyn Bergner, Ph.D., USA; Denis Bucquet, M.D., France; Monika Bullinger, Ph.D., Germany; David Cella, Ph.D., USA; David H. Feeny, Ph.D., Canada; Gordon Guyatt, M.D., Canada; Ron Hays, Ph.D., USA; Robert Kaplan, Ph.D, USA; Donald Patrick, Ph.D., USA; Dennis Revicki, Ph.D., USA; Anita Stewart, Ph.D., USA; Ingela Wiklund, Ph.D., Sweden; David Wilkin, Ph.D., UK. (2) Jordi Alonso. Dealing with Cross-cultural Differences when Measuring Health Status. QOL Newsletter 1992; 4: 1-2. • P U B L I C AT I O N Books Quality of Life after Open Heart Surgery Edited by Paul J. Walter, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Cardiac Surgery at the University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. The technical evolution of Cardiac Surgery in the last decades has been rewarded with longterm survival with few complications. matching improvement in the quality of this survival as subjectively felt by the patient has now become most important to assess the justification of surgery. T his book is the summary of the proceedings of an international symposium which addressed the growing demand in this fact of cardiac surgery. For the first time, quality of life after valve replacement, coronary bypass, surgery for congenital heart disease, and heart transplantation has been extensively analyzed in terms of the physiological state, intellectual functioning, emotional state, performance of social roles and general satisfaction. The patient’s well-being has become the focus of a joint effort of cardiologists, surgeons, general practitioners, psychologists, sociologists and occupational physicians, for all of whom this book offers a guide to the to the improvement of our patients’ “quality of life open heart surgery”. A A study to assess quality of life and quality of medical services provided to people with epilepsy is currently being undertaken in the Mersey Health Region in England. he study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, is being carried out joinly by the Departments of Neurosciences at Walton Hospital, Liverpool, the University Departments of General Practice and Clinical Psychology and the Centre for Health Services Research at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. T Around a thousand patients, identified through general practitioner morbidity registers and repeat prescription records, are being asked to complete questionnaires to examine their views and experiences of the care they receive for their epilepsy, and the impact of the condition on their overall quality of life. In addition, the general practitioners through whom the patients are being identified, are being asked to undertake an audit of the care they provide for their patients with epilepsy. A number of previous studies have examined the psychosocial aspects of epilepsy, but few have attempted to address the relationship between quality of life and quality of care in a systematic way. This is, to our knowledge, the first largescale study to audit care for people with epilepsy. Questionnaires for both adults and children have been developed, based on a diseasespecific model of physical, social and psychological well-being. The measures If you know anyone who receiving the Quality of Name : Life Newsletter, please Position : For further information, please contact : complete the reply Address : USA/Canada : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358, USA. Fax : (1) 617 871-6528. Rest of the World : Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Order Dept., PO Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Fax : (31) 78 52 44 74. coupon(s) and return to: • incorporated in the adult questionnaire include a novel seizure severity scale (1), a scale to measure life fulfilment (2), a scale to assess the impact of epilepsy on everyday functioning (3), the Affect-Balance Scale (4), the Mastery Scale (5) and a scale to measure feelings of stigma (6). Patients are also asked about the care they have received in the past year both at hospital and in general practice, and about their satisfaction with their care. (6) Ryan R., Kempner K., and Emlen, A. C. The Stigma of Epilepsy as a Self-Concept. Epilepsia 1980; 21: 433-444. Parents of children under 16 are asked to complete a questionnaire on their behalf. To assess the children’s psychosocial functioning, we are using a novel carer’s assessment of seizure severity scale, a scale to measure the impact of epilepsy on everyday life and the Behavioural Symptoms Checklist (7). Parents are also asked about their contacts with primary and secondary care and their satisfaction with services. Social and Psychological Aspects of Multiple Sclerosis : Implications for Diagnostics, Management and Rehabilitation. The study will be completed by mid-1993 and it is hoped the information gained will be valuable in increasing the efficacy of services for people with epilepsy. • (1) Baker G.A., Smith D.F., Dewey M., Morrow J., Crawford P.M., and Chadwick D.W. The Development of a Seizure Severity Scale as an Outcome Measure in Epilepsy. Epilepsy Research 1991; 8: 245-251. (2) Baker G.A. The Development of a Novel Scale to Assess Life Fulfilment as part of the Further Refinement of a Quality of Life Model for Epilepsy (In Preparation). (3) Jacoby A. Measuring the Impact of Epilepsy : the Initial Development of a Novel Scale (In Preparation). (4) Bradburn N.M. The Structure of Psychological Wellbeing. Chicago : Aldine, 1969. (5) Pearlin L., and Schooler C. The Structure of Coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 1978; 19: 2-21. MEETINGS Agenda January 6 to 8, 1993 This International Conference is being organized by the Department of Human Sciences and the Centre for the Study of Health, Sickness and Disablement at Brunel University, and will be held at St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, U.K. For further information, please contact : Pr. John T.E. Richardson, Dpt. of Human Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB 8 3PH, U.K. Tel : (44) 895 274 000 - Fax : (44) 895 232 806. January 28, 1993 Economic Evaluation of DrugsMethodologies This symposium, organized by “Médicament et Santé” (Drug and Health), will be held at the CNIT, Paris La Défense, France. Methodological basis of Economic Evaluation of Drugs and selected examples will be presented. For further information, please contact : Dr. Henry, Médicament et Santé, Hôpital Broca, 5456 rue Pascal, 75013 Paris. Tel : (33) 1 49 60 75 70 - Fax : (33) 1 49 60 10 92. NEWS LETTER Country : Dr. Catherine Acquadro, Tel : MAPI Fax : My name : 27 rue de la Villette, My address : 69003 Lyon, France. Fax: (33) 78 53 67 61. (7) Rutter M., Graham P., and Yule W. A Neuropsychiatric Study in Childhood. London : Heinemann, 1970. I wish the Quality of Life Newsletter to be sent to : might be interested in ✂ Second, the Advisory Board agreed that the primary source for HRQL questionnaires should always be the study participants. However, recognizing that this is not always possible, observers - including family members, intimate friends, health care providers, and researchers - can be considered. The critical point is that the primary source of HRQL data (e.g., the patient) will, in most instances, provide the most accurate measure of HRQL. Thus, any divergence from the primary source will result in a decrement of the accuracy of the information. to assure conceptual equivalence. Translation and back-translation methodology was described in a recent MAPI QOL Newsletter (2), and there was consensus that these types of efforts are necessary and appropriate as first steps toward the development of cross national measures. It was agreed as well that cross cultural adaptation of HRQL measures should include equivalence of the instructions, training and format relevant to administering the instrument. IN PROGRESS England A Critical Review of Cross National Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments appetite, and symptoms relevant to the intervention and to the disease etiology. Board members further agreed that a critical minimum number of domains is not required to claim that HRQL was assessed within a clinical trial. The decision to include a HRQL domain is entirely dependent on the characteristics of the study; that is, the trial design, the population studied, and the expected positive and negative effects of the intervention (including placebo and usual care). As long as all domains of HRQL are carefully considered and the investigator can provide a reasonable rationale for the exclusion of a domain, then it can be argued that HRQL is an outcome of the study. 11 Return to: Dr. Catherine Acquadro, MAPI, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France. Fax (33) 78 53 67 61. QOL 12 KEY MEETINGS NEWS WORD INDEX Agenda February 8 to 12, 1993 “Quality of Life and Oncology Research” This 5-day seminar, organized as a course, is intended to give methodological basis for Quality of Life evaluations in oncology, and will be held in Milano, Italy. Sessions will be held by Stefano Rosso, Institute of Medical Statistics and Biometry, Statale University, Milano, and Marcello Tamburini, National Cancer Institute, Milano. Language : Italian. For further information, please contact : Brief Communication, Via A. Pollaiudo 16, 20159 Milano. Tel : (39) 2 688 688 6 - 668 052 55 Fax : (39) 2 688 699 2. April 26 and 27, 1993 Quality of Life Evaluation The Drug Information Association (DIA) is pleased to announce its meeting on Quality of Life, to be held at Charleston, South Carolina, USA, on April 26 and 27, 1993. The objective of this meeting is to provide a forum for the exchange of research and development in Quality of Life Evaluation. For further information, please contact : DIA office, PO Box 3113, Maple Glen, PA 190028113, USA. Tel : (1) 215 628 2288 - Fax : (1) 215 641 1229. and on prevention, and will be held in Bern, Switzerland. For further information, please contact : 12th World Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine, C/O AKM Congress Service, PO Box, CH-4005 Basel, Switzerland. Tel : (41) 61 691 51 11 Fax : (41) 61 691 81 89. Call for Abstracts May 20 and 21, 1993 CHEPA’S 6th Annual Health Policy Conference “The Buck stops where ? Accountabilities in Health and Health Care”. The 1993 Conference of the Centre for Health Econonmics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA) held in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, will examine accountability as a theme of current and emerging importance in the Health Policy debate. Please consider contributing to this meeting. Deadline for abstract submissions is December 15, 1992. For further information, please contact : Linda Marsh, Conference Administrator, CHEPA, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Rm 3H26, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 375. Tel : (1) 416 525 9140, ext. 2135 Fax : (1) 416 546 5211. November 14 and 15, 1993 7th Annual ESPO Meeting August 29 - September 2, 1993 12th World Congress of Psychosomatic Medicine. “How can we help” Psychosocial Interventions and Psychotherapies in Medicine. This congress organized by the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine (ICPM) will focus on new concepts in salutogenesis (versus pathogenesis) and health promotion, on intervention strategies, on cooperation models The 7th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Psychological Oncology will be held on November 14-15, 1993 at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus Campus in Jerusalem, Israël. The organizing committee welcomes the submission of abstracts relevant to psychological oncology. For information, please contact : ESPO7, PO Box 8388, Jerusalem 91082, Israël. Tel : (972) 2 617 402 - Fax : (972) 2 637 572. Key Words Pages ABS ACF-SI Asthma Back-Translation Methodology BS Checklist Causal Process Approach Construct Theory COPD Cost-Utility Studies Cronbach’s Coefficient/a Cystic Fibrosis Depressed Patients Epilepsy Hip Replacement Surgery HIV/AIDS HRQL Domains Hypertension International Board of Advisors IQOLA Project Irritable Bowel Syndrome MA Systems Mastery Scale MOS-20 Multiple Sclerosis Oncology/Cancer Open Heart Surgery Osteoarthritis Pediatric Populations/Children Peptic Ulcer Disease Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia Psychological Variables QOL Bibliography Rosenthal Effect SEIQOL Seizure Severity Scale SF-36 SQLP Subjective Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale 11 4 5 2 11 7 7 5 10 3-4-5-9 4 3 11 8 8-9 1 8 1-2 10 8 6 11 9 11 3-6-12 2 8 6-11 8 9 7 4 1 1-8 11 10 3 3 8 N U M B E R Quality of Life : Marks of Interest in Ireland and the Netherlands By CRB Joyce, Psychiatric University Policlinic, Bern, Switzerland. The increasing importance of studying Quality of Life (QOL) in a scientific way was emphazised at two recent meetings, in two quite different ways. t the annual meeting of the (British) Royal College of Psychiatrists, which took place in July of this year at Trinity College Dublin, a session devoted entirely to the subject was chaired by the President of the College, Professor ACP Sims of the University of Leeds. A All five papers were concerned with methodology, a subject that the authors could however scarcely have considered in more different ways, for they ranged from the relaxed but classically statistical to the verbal (and interminable) protocol. But one point seemed to emerge from all, whether deliberately or by accident : a demonstration of the Rosenthal Effect. That is to say, the investigator can all too easily find the results that he expects or for which he or she hopes. If you are gloomy about the QOL of senior citizens, then your transcripts will justify your gloom, whereas if you yourself feel positive about the rewards of old age, you are likely to find respondents, even to conventional questionnaires, who agree with you. Director of Publication: Bernard Jambon, Chairman NEWS LETTER Position : Coordination: Address : Dr. Catherine Acquadro, MAPI Country : Tel : 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France. Fax : Tel: (33) 72 33 00 48. My name : Fax: (33) 78 53 67 61. Return to: Dr. Catherine Acquadro, MAPI, 27 rue de la Villette, 69003 Lyon, France. Fax (33) 78 53 67 61. ✂ My address : MEDCOM, Lyon, France. ISSN 1161-6407 MAPI Name : OCT 92 NEWS... The Quality of Life Newsletter is backed by the contract research organization of MAPI Group. I wish the Quality of Life Newsletter to be sent to : LETTER 5 Interest was shown in a quite different manner by those attending a September workshop on Individual Judgement and Decision-Making, organized by the Department of Psychology of the University of Amsterdam. A relatively brief mention in one paper of the practical application of Social Judgement Theory to the estimation of QOL (the SEIQOL)* caused a surprising number of young Dutch sociologists and psychologists to reveal that they had recently begun studies of this kind. Again a common, but different, theme emerged : that it is essential to spend sufficient time in careful preparation, if your intended subjects are not to be discountenanced by the very unfamiliarity of such a simple and common-sense approach. * See Pr. O’Boyle’s article in same issue of QOL Newsletter, P 8. - JAN 93 METHODS A Critical Review of Cross National Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments By Richard Berzon, Dr. P.H., Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics Scientist, Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA, and Sally Shumaker, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Section Head, Social Sciences and Health Policy, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. This is a summary of a meeting held from 25-26 August to review present and future directions for the international use, application and performance of health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments. he document that served as the point of departure for the meeting was written by Dr. Sally Shumaker and her colleagues, Drs. Roger Anderson and Michelle Naughton, of the Bowman Gray School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Iterative review of the document was provided by a fourteen member International Board of Advisors (1). The project was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Co. The Board of Advisors met at the company in Research Triangle Park, NC. T The need for cross nationally valid healthrelated quality of life (HRQL) measures for use in international clinical trials is recognized by quality of life scientists throughout the world. HRQL research still faces special challenges within the context of international efficacy trials. Cross national variations in such factors as : perceptions of health and sickness, the interpretation of symptoms, the meaning of quality of life, and expectations for care continue to determine how areas of HRQL and functional status are understood, assessed and defined. These variations make it difficult to conceptualize HRQL and to identify standards of agreement by which present and future measures can be evaluated for cross national research. The experts who convened in North Carolina, however, did reach agreement on short and long term strategies for addressing these issues and methods for moving the field of HRQL measurement forward. First, the Advisors agreed that four areas (domains) were essential to any HRQL measure. These domains include physical, mental/psychological, and social health, as well as global perceptions of health and wellbeing. Other HRQL domains considered important include pain, energy/vitality, sleep, (continued on p. 2) S U M M A R Y Methods 2 7 A Critical Review of Cross National Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments by Richard Berzon and Sally Shumaker 4 6 The Causal Process Approach to Quality of Life by Michael E. Hyland Instruments 3 5 A New Instrument to Assess the Subjective Quality of Life of Patients : the Subjective Quality of Life Questionnaire (SQLP by A. Dazord, P. Gerin and J.P. Boissel Quality of Life Assessment in Adult Cystic Fibrosis : the Adult CF Symptoms Index by David A. Haase and Patricia Hazell 8 Developing a Quality of Life Questionnaire for Patients with Respiratory Illness by A.R. Maillé, C.J.M. Koning and A.A. Kaptein Two Multi-Attribute Systems for Measuring Health Status and Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life by David Feeny, William Furlong and George W. Torrance The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQOL) by Ciaran A. O'Boyle Work in Progress 10 International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project by Barbara Gandek 11 Assessing Quality of Life and Quality of Medical Services for People with Epilepsy by Gus Baker and Ann Jacoby Meetings - Agenda 11-12 From January 92 to November 93 Results 9 Measuring Health Status of Patients with HIV Disease Using the MOS Short-Form Health Survey by John D. Pïette, Vincent Mor, John A. Fleishman, Tom Wachtel and Michael Stein News.../Publications 2-4-6-8-9 Key Word Index 12
© Copyright 2024