Quality of Life Research: Clinical Applications

  • Jennifer L. Reifel
  • Patricia A. Ganz
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 97)


Concern over the rising costs of health care in the United States has focused attention on the young discipline of health services research. While outcomes of disease and treatment have always been important in medical care, at least implicitly, the new discipline of health services research has broken down the concept of outcomes explicitly and developed ways to measure them. The Behavioral Model of Health Services Use (Figure 1) provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding the health care system, including the factors that influence people accessing health care, their use of health services, and health outcomes. Health outcomes include consumer satisfaction, evaluated health status, and perceived health status. Consumer satisfaction refers to patients satisfaction with their experience with the health care system. Evaluated health status represents those aspects of an individual’s health that can be observed and measured such as mortality, organ dysfunction, or disability. Perceived health status is an individual’s own perception about his or her health and how it impacts on other aspects of life. Perceived health status is used synonymously by health services researchers as health related quality of life or simply quality of life (QOL.)


Radical Prostatectomy Localize Prostate Cancer Cancer Clinical Trial Perceive Health Status Evaluate Health Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cella DF, Bonomi AE. Measuring QOL: 1995 update. Oncology 1995; 9(11 Suppl): 47–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    QOL assessment in cancer clinical trials. Report of the Workshop on QOL Research. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research. National Cancer Institute. July 16–17, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS. QOL in Cancer: Definition, purpose and method of measurement. Cancer Invest 1993; 11(3): 327–336.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aaronson NK. QOL: What is it? How should it be measured? Oncology 1988;2(5): 69–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. “The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer.” In Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents, CM McCledo, ed. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1949, pp.191–205.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greico A, Long JL. Investigation of the Karnofsky performance status as a measure of quality of life. Health Psychol 1984; 3:129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sprangers MAG, Aaranson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(7): 743–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martini CJ, McDowell I. Health status: Patient and physician judgments. Health Serv Res 1976; 11:508–515.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, Drinkwater J, Gregoy WM. Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 1988; 57:109–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schag CAC, Ganz PA, Wing DS, Sim M-S, Lee JJ. Quality of life in adult survivors of lung, colon and prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 1994; 3:127–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware JE. Standards for validating health measures: Definition and content. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40:473–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tulsky DS. An introduction to test theory. Oncology 1990; 4(5): 43–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganz PA, Lee JJ, Siau J. Quality of life assessment: An independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer 1991; 67:3131–3135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coates A, Gebski V, Bishop JF, Jeal PN, Woods RL, Snyder R, Tattersall MH, Byrne M, Harvey V, Gill G. Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: A comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategies. N Engl J Med 1987; 17(24): 1490–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finkelstein DM, Cassileth BR, Bonomi PD, Reckdeschel JC, Ezdinli EZ, Wolter JM. A pilot study of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC) Scale for the assessment of quality of life for metastatic lung cancer patients. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. Am J Clin Oncol 1988; 11(6): 630–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayden KA, Moinpour CM, Metch B, Feigl P, O’Bryan RM, Green S, et al. Pitfalls in quality of life assessment: Lessons from a Southwest Oncology Group breast cancer clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum 1993; 20:1415–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyatt G, Walter S, and Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40(2): 171–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guvatt GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important differences. Controlled Clin Trials 1989; 10:407–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Angel. The impact of culture on the cognitive structure of illness. Cult Med Psych 1987; 11(4):465–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kagawa-Singer M. Socio-economic and cultural influences on cancer care of women. Sem One Nurs 1995; 11(2): 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson JR, Temple R. Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of new anticancer drugs. Cancer Treatment Reports 1985; 69:1155–1157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osoba D. The QOL Committee of the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada: Organization and functions. Qual Life Res 1992; 1:211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASCO Outcomes Working Group. Outcomes of Cancer Treatment for Technology and Cancer Treatment Guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:671–679.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ganz PA, Lee JJ, Siau J. Quality of life assessment.: An independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer 1991; 67:3131–3135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coscarelli Schag AC, Ganz PA, Polinsky ML, Fred C, Hirji K, and Petersen L. Characteristics of women a risk for psychosocial distress in the year after breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(4):783–793.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ganz PA, Schag CAC, Lee JJ, et al. Breast conservation versus mastectomy: Is there a difference in psychological adjustment or quality of life in the year after surgery? Cancer 1992; 69:1729–1738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maunsell E, Brisson J, Deschennes L. Psychological distress after initial treatment for breast cancer: A comparison of partial and total mastectomy. J Clin Epidem 1989; 42:765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolberg WH, Ramosaas EP, Tanner MA, et al. Psychosexual adaptation to breast cancer surgery. Cancer 1989; 63:1645–1655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kiebert GM, de Haes JC, van de Velde CJ. The impact of breast-conserving treatment and mastectomy on the quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients: A review. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9:1059–1070.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garnick MB. Prostate cancer: Screening, diagnosis, and management. Ann Int Med 1993; 118(10):804–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lim AJ, Brandon AK, Fiedler J, Brickman AL, Boyer Cl, Raub WA, Soloway MS. Quality of life: Radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1995; 154:1420–1425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Leach GE, Brook RH. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 273(2): 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chodak G, Sharifi R, Kasimis B, Block NL, Macranialla E, and Kennealey GT. Single-agent therapy with bicalutamide: A comparison with medical or surgical castration in the treatment of advanced prostate carcinoma. Urology 1995; 46(6):849–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coscarelli Schag CA and Heinrich RL. Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology 1990; 4(5): 135–138.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ganz PA, Coscarelli Schag CA, Lee JJ, and Sim M-S. The CARES: a generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1992; 1:19–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    A Coscarelli, personal communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Reifel
    • 1
  • Patricia A. Ganz
    • 1
  1. 1.UCLA Center for Health SciencesLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations