Quality of Life Research

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 347–355 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains most valued by urban IsiXhosa-speaking people

  • Jennifer Jelsma
  • Siviwe Mkoka
  • Seyi Ladele Amosun



The aim of the study was to investigate and identify aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that are most valued by IsiXhosa-speaking people resident in underresourced areas of Cape Town, South Africa.


Fifty-seven domains of HRQoL were identified as important through group discussions with IsiXhosa-speaking people. Participants randomly selected from the community (n = 601) and from individuals seeking medical attention at a local clinic (n = 102) graded the domains on a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 for “not at all important” to 10 for “ very important”. The domains were then mapped to the categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.


The domains regarded as being most important were Food availability [9.5, standard deviation (SD) = 1.52), Owning a brick house (9.4, SD = 1.57), Access to medical services (9.4, SD = 1.55) and Family safety (9.4, SD = 1.7). Having no bodily pain ranked 40th. Environmental Factors were valued significantly more than the other two categories, and those related to Body Functions were valued higher than domains in the category of Activity and Participation.

Discussion and conclusion

Despite being asked specifically to answer the questions in relation to their health status, the participants apparently did not differentiate between general quality of life (QoL) and specific HRQoL. It appears that members of an underresourced community regard socioeconomic and service delivery aspects of their lives as integral to their perceived state of health. It may be that it is not possible to separate out factors relating to general QoL from those specifically related to HRQoL in an underresourced population, and such populations might not be suitable for inclusion in certain clinical trials where an improvement in HRQoL is the required outcome. Alternatively, if an HRQoL instrument is to be used to monitor the impact of medical interventions, the inclusion of Environmental Factors should be considered.


Health-related quality of life Underresourced areas ICF framework Environmental Factors 



We thank S. Mgqwaki, N. Ndongeni and K. Sisusa for assistance in data collection, Prof. D. McIntyre for advice and the Medical Research Council of South Africa and the University of Cape Town for providing funding.


  1. 1.
    Mkoka, S., Jelsma, J., & Vaughan, J. (2003). The pitfalls of translation. South African Medical Journal, 93, 265–266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jelsma, J., Amosun, D., Mkoka, S., & Nieuwveld, J. (2004). The reliability and validity of the Xhosa version of the EQ-5D. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 103–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jelsma, J., De Weerdt, W., De Cock, P., Mielke, J., & Mhundwa, K. (2002). The validity of the Shona Version of the EQ-5D quality of life measure. South African Journal of Physiotherapy, 58, 8–12.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Keefe, E. A., & Wood, R. (1996). The impact of human immunodeficiency virus infection on quality of life in a multiracial South African population. Quality of Life Research, 5, 275–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health—short version. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenbaum, P., & Stewart, D. (2004). The World Health Organization international classification of functioning, disability, and health: A model to guide clinical thinking, practice and research in the field of cerebral palsy. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 11, 5–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    City of Cape Town. (2005). Demographics. http://www.capetown.gov.za/home/demographics.asp (July 2005).
  8. 8.
    City of Cape Town. (2006). City of Cape Town—census 2001–2006 suburbs. Cape Town. http://www.capetown.gov.za/censusinfo/Census2001-new/Suburbs/Khayelitsha.htm (17 October, 2007).
  9. 9.
    Médecins Sans Frontières and Infectious Disease Epidemiology Unit University of Cape Town. (2003). Providing HIV services including antiretroviral therapy at primary health care clinics in resource-poor settings: The experience from Khayelitsha. Cape Town. http://www.msf.org/source/countries/africa/southafrica/2004/1000/khayelitsha1000.pdf (17 October, 2007).
  10. 10.
    Jelsma, J., MacLean, E., Hughes, J., Tinise, X., & Darder, M. (2004). An investigation into the health related quality of life of individuals living with HIV who are receiving Highly Active Anti-retroviral Therapy (HAART). AIDS Care, 17, 579–588.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jelsma, J., Maart, S., Eide, A., Ka’toni, M., & Loeb, M. (2007). The determinants of health-related quality of life in urban and rural IsiXhosa-speaking people with disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 30, 119–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamers, L., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P., Krabbe, P., & Busschbach, J. (2006). The Dutch tariffs: Results and arguments for a cost-effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics, 15, 1121–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson, K. L., & Lizzio, A. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feeny, D. H., & Torrance, G. W. (1989). Incorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials. Two examples. Medical Care, 27, S190–S204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooks, R., & EuroQol Group. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health—browser version. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stat Soft. (2004). Statistica.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Atijosan, O., Kuper, H., Rischewski, D., Simms, V., & Lavy, C. (2007). Musculoskeletal impairment survey in Rwanda: Design of survey tool, survey methodology, and results of the pilot study (a cross-sectional survey). BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 8, 30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jelsma, J., Mielke, J., Powell, G., Fox, B., Weerdt, W. D., & Cock, P. D. (2002). Disability in an urban black community in Zimbabwe. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 851–859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Statistics South Africa. (2005). Data census 2001: Primary tables Western Cape: Census 1996 and 2001 compared. In Statistics South Africa, 2005, Government of South Africa, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Essink-Bot, M., Krabbe, P., Bonsel, G., & Aaronson, N. (1997). An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. Medical Care, 35, 522–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jelsma, J., Chivaura, V., De Cock, P., & De Weerdt, W. (2000). A bridge between cultures: A report on the process of translating the EQ-5D instrument into Shona. South African Journal of Physiotherapy, 56, 3–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paul, D. (1999). Biological and biopsychosocial models of health and disease in dentistry. Journal of Canadian Dental Association, 65, 496–497.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Jelsma
    • 1
  • Siviwe Mkoka
    • 1
  • Seyi Ladele Amosun
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations