Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Assess an Article that Deals with Health-Related Quality of Life

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence-Based Surgery

  • 604 Accesses

Abstract

The outcome , Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) , is a subcategory of Quality of Life that includes domains of physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning. This outcome, measured with sophisticated instruments, is becoming increasingly popular in surgical studies to report postoperative results. Often, HRQL helps surgeons decide if they would like to adopt or reject novel surgical interventions/innovations. Because of this, it is important that surgeons, be familiar with how to properly appraise an article that purports to use an HRQL measure to compare surgical interventions. For surgeon-investigators, this chapter will explain which HRQL scales to use, when to use them, and how to report them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life. [Internet]. Geneva; 2018 [cited 2018 Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whoqol-qualityoflife/en/.

  2. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Health-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being. [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 10]. Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health-measures/Health-Related-Quality-of-Life-and-Well-Being.

  3. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wood-Dauphinee S. Quality of life assessment: recent trends in surgery. Can J Surg. 1996;39:368–72.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wood-Dauphinee S. Assessing quality of life in clinical research: from where have we come and where are we going? J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:355–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Waltho D, Kaur MN, Haynes RB, Farrokhyar F, Thoma A. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: hot to perform a high-quality literature search. Can J Surg. 2015;58(5):349–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Park AK, Danielsen E, Angenete D, Bock AC, Marinez E, Haglind JE, et al. Quality of life in a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial). Wiley Online Libr. 2018;105:244–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Danielsen AK, Park J, Jansen JE, Bock D, Skullman S, Wedin A, et al. Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: a Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):284–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program. [Internet]. Silver Spring, Maryland; 2018 [cited 2018 Jan 10]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/ucm284077.html.

  10. Streiner DL, Norman RG, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi Nazir CPA. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):137–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Litwin MS. Health-related quality of life. In: Penson DF, Wei JT, editors. Chapter 13: Clinical research for surgeons. Totowa, NJ: Humma Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guyatt GH, Naylor CD, Juniper E. Users’ guides to the medical literature XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1232–7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Thoma A, Cornacchi SD, Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to assess an article on health-related quality of life. Can J Surg. 2008;51(3):215–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stansfeld SA, Roberts R, Foot SP. Assessing the validity of the SF-36 general health survey. Qual Life Res. 1997;6(3):217–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A. Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:7–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Russell IT. SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions. Qual Health Care. 1994;3(4):186–92.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ganesh V, Agarwal A, Popovic M, Bottomley A, McDonald R, Vuong S, et al. Comparison of the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaires for patients with colorectal cancer: a literature review. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(8):3661–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. EORTC. EORTC QLQ-C30. [Internet]. Brussels; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 5]. Available from: http://groups.eortc.be/qol/eortc-qlq-c30.

  22. EuroQoL Group. EQ-5D-5L. [Internet]. Rotterdam; 2009 [cited 2018 Jan 5]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/.

  23. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The health utilities index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(54):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Achilles Thoma & Jenny Santos

  2. Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Margherita Cadeddu

  3. Offord Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Eric K. Duku

  4. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Achilles Thoma & Charles H. Goldsmith

  5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Charles H. Goldsmith

  6. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Charles H. Goldsmith

Authors
  1. Achilles Thoma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenny Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margherita Cadeddu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric K. Duku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles H. Goldsmith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Achilles Thoma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Achilles Thoma

  2. Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Sheila Sprague

  3. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Sophocles H. Voineskos

  4. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Charles H. Goldsmith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thoma, A., Santos, J., Cadeddu, M., Duku, E.K., Goldsmith, C.H. (2019). How to Assess an Article that Deals with Health-Related Quality of Life. In: Thoma, A., Sprague, S., Voineskos, S., Goldsmith, C. (eds) Evidence-Based Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05120-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05120-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05119-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05120-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation