Logo of jrsocmedLink to Publisher's site
J R Soc Med. Oct 2002; 95(10): 481–488.
PMCID: PMC1279172

Quality of life: a deconstruction for clinicians

Quality of life has been an issue in medical research for more than twenty years1, and many authorities now regard it as a key measurement in clinical trials2,3. Yet the concept remains controversial. In the clinical world, scepticism is exemplified by a comment by Wulff in the JRSM:

‘Scientists may use rating scales and visual analogue scales to measure pain, and they may even invent scoring systems quantifying types of handicaps; but when they talk about measuring quality of life they have gone too far’4.

This statement reflects a two-world model of medicine and of human experience in which objective facts are clearly distinguished from subjective values4,5. It can be seen as a reaction to the World Health Organization's concept of health and of quality of life that invites us to mix facts and values non-systematically:

‘Quality of life is defined as an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value system in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations and standards and concerns. It is a broad ranging concept affected in a complex way by the person's physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, and their relationship to salient features of their environment’6.

THREE-COMPONENT OUTCOME MODEL

Although we do not share Wulff's scepticism we also reject the romantic/holistic WHO definition. Instead we propose a three-component outcome model that should be both empirically testable and clinically relevant. Clearly, a patient can only be understood when both ‘worlds’ are assessed. Figure 1 represents a man with colorectal cancer. Looking at the left side of his face we capture his health status in terms of mechanistic outcomes of the kind usually assessed in clinical practice and in research7. In assessing these attributes we understand half of his fate. The other half is composed of psychosocial (hermeneutic) constructs that are assessed from patients' self-reports. But only when the two halves are put together, and through information exchange the patient and the doctor agree on the most important endpoint of treatment8, is the outcome likely to be satisfactory in the patient's terms.

Figure 1
The three component outcome model

Our approach to quality of life is based on the principles of experimental social psychology. This relatively new life science proceeds by hypothesis testing. As West and Wicklund8 put it, ‘Theories will ultimately be evaluated on their ability to account for the results of existing research, to suggest ideas that can be tested in future research, and to predict correctly outcome of research’9.

THE CORRELATES OF QUALITY OF LIFE

With this notion in mind we have conducted a series of studies to aid our understanding of patients' responses to questionnaires. As a standard instrument we used the EORTC-C30 quality of life questionnaire, which was developed under the auspices of the European Organisation for Research on Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), has been translated into more than twenty languages and is now widely used in international clinical studies10. The questionnaire covers physical functioning, role functioning, emotional, social and cognitive functioning and various specific somatic symptoms and provides an overall evaluation of the present condition (global quality of life). Briefly, what we learned was as follows.

Symptom distress

Overall, somatic symptom distress was highly correlated with the psychological variables negative affect (r=0.70 to r=0.75), experienced social stigma (r=0.51), social desirability (r=-0.50) and positive thinking (r=0.40 or r=-0.40, depending on whether positive affect or compensatory self-related positive thinking was dominant)11,12,13.

These psychological variables deserve explanation. Negative affect (NA) is defined as a summary category of unpleasant emotional states such as anxiety, restlessness, depression or low self-esteem. Individuals scoring high on NA scales have the propensity to experience such unfavourable emotions. This variable is considered of central importance because of its consistent and strong relations to health complaints across a variety of studies, in different samples and with different NA measures14,15. Furthermore, there are also national differences in the level of NA16. These differences have to be taken into account when cross-cultural variations in standardized quality of life scores are under scrutiny17. NA is also a component of the EORTC questionnaire (items 21-24). Many users are unaware of this, since the questionnaire-developers chose for unknown reasons to label this set of items ‘emotional functioning’.

Social stigma is an individual's feeling that others treat him/her as a sick person and no longer as a normal member of society. Experienced social stigma can be measured reliably with a 8-item scale11.

Social desirability is defined as readiness to endorse questionnaire statements that are valued by society. Since health is something highly valued in western society, individuals high in social desirability are expected to report few symptoms and high quality of life. Various measures to assess social desirability have been published12.

Finally, self-related thinking is an individual's proneness to introspection. Preoccupation with positive aspects of the self has been interpreted as a reaction to failure experiences18; and, since long illness episodes can be regarded as failure experiences, self-related thinking is relevant to the reporting of health complaints and quality of life19.

The correlation coefficients reported above characterize the association between somatic symptoms and psychological variables. A comparable pattern of results was observed when these variables were correlated with global quality of life as the quasi-dependent variable. However, both somatic symptoms and global quality of life were virtually unrelated to objective clinical criteria (tumour growth, findings of imaging techniques, carcinoembryonic antigen, external physicians' overall judgments)11,12,13. Clearly, quality of life is a domain outside the biochemical/molecular paradigm.

Expectations

Patients and their doctors were asked for their expectations regarding radiotherapy20,21. Both gave their responses before the start of therapy, and it turned out that patients showed a much richer spectrum of expectations than doctors, who focused on pain relief and tumour size reduction. The most dramatic difference was in expectations of cure. 58% of the patients expected cure from radiotherapy, whereas from the doctors' standpoint this was a realistic expectation in only 7%. In fact, most patients were receiving palliative therapy for advanced cancer. Although the patients were carefully informed, many of them expected to regain their health. In the published work, psychological processes of this sort are labelled ‘positive illusions’22 and ‘denial’23. A remarkable observation was that those who expected healing had a significantly better quality of life (or those who expected only pain relief had a significantly worse quality of life)21. For clinical purposes, we need to know the individual patient's expectations.

Priorities

Therapy priorities have been investigated in relation to cholecystectomy24. When patients were asked in a qualitative analysis which endpoints they ranked most important for outcome we were surprised by some of the answers. A rapid return to physical fitness—becoming the same as before the disease—was sometimes rated higher than death and more important than pain, hospital stay and cosmesis. Yet in the more than sixty studies comparing laparoscopic with conventional cholecystectomy, return to physical fitness has never been the primary endpoint. Though otherwise well designed, these studies seem to have assessed outcomes that were of more interest to doctors than to patients.

CAUSALITY

When we look at studies of the kind cited above, an obvious question concerns the direction of causation. Do the psychological variables affect somatic symptoms and quality of life, or does quality of life affect the psychological variables? Since we found a large number of variables related to quality of life, we think it futile to seek unidirectional cause-and-effect relations. We prefer to characterize the ‘influence variables’ as either sufficient determinants or contributory determinants25. This standpoint is backed by experimental studies. With regard to negative affect, bad mood can cause bodily symptoms19,26,27, but under certain conditions the reverse can also be true28. Similarly incompetence can lead to self-related thinking29,30,31, but individuals are perceived as competent by outside observers when they use self-related terms in describing an activity32. Many phenomena investigated in social psychology have bidirectional, dynamic, causal relationships33.

The philosophy of science offers numerous definitions and concepts of causality, and that of Collingwood is particularly appropriate for the present discussion35. According to Collingwood, a cause is something that can be altered in order to instigate a desired change in a given environment. From this perspective, if a specific precondition (e.g. gene defect) of cancer has been detected that can not be altered by humans, this is not regarded as a cause. The quest for a cause continues until cancer can be successfully treated. Quality of life is an abstract term and there is no accepted way to enhance the quality as such. However, more concrete aspects such as expectations, negative affect, social stigma or patient preferences can be foci for intervention. Patients' expectations should be modifiable through careful information36,37, their negative affect through psychotherapeutic interventions38,39,40, and social stigmatization by influencing the family environment11 or bringing patients' preferences into harmony with medical decision-making41. These settings also would allow for testing of specific unidirectional hypotheses within randomized controlled therapeutic trials. Furthermore, the correlational studies enhance our understanding of patients' responses to standard quality-of-life questionnaires. Such questionnaires produce results that are hard to interpret without additional information. ‘Naked’ quality-of-life-scores yield no real understanding of the patient's personal experiences. One has to know the network of variables in which the assessments are embedded.

AN EMPIRICAL DEFINITION OF QUALITY OF LIFE

From the above considerations we arrive at an experimentally and empirically based definition of quality of life that differs from the philosophical WHO definition (Box 1). This conception is now described in more detail.

Box 1 Our concept of quality of life

Assessed in disease—the critical model

Self-perception and self-report in 3 domains: somatic, psychological, social

Includes health-related and therapy-related expectations and coping

Is influenced by psychosocial variables such as negative affect

Is part of a three-component outcome model including mechanistic endpoints, hermeneutic endpoints and a qualitative analysis of clinical relevance

Health-related or disease related?

When assessed in patients, quality of life is not related to health (as is commonly argued in textbooks and journals)42, but is rather related to disease, and in particular to a specific disease6. The critical model of disease is defined by a combination of the biological model of disease and the psychosocial model in which the patient suffers and seeks help from the doctor7,43. This viewpoint is very different from the ‘having fun’ stereotype of a good quality of life. Current quality of life questionnaires have been developed for and validated with ill people. The psychological predicament and consequently the concept of quality of life of ill people may differ from that of ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’ people. Specifically, patients have something socially and personally undesirable, namely an illness; they want to get rid of this condition, to get from one state to another; patients' physiological abnormal state (with raised levels of cytokines etc.) may affect the psychological state and thus questionnaire responses; notions such as palliation are outside everyday human experience, so special assessment instruments are necessary44,45.

Self-reported or physician-assessed?

‘Self-reported’ means that quality of life is not assessed by the doctor but via a questionnaire used under the patient's control. It does not simply consist of a statement of symptoms such as pain yes or no, but also provides an evaluation such as severe or intolerable. Three groups of dimensions (domains) are included—somatic symptoms such as pain; psychological components including emotion, cognition and general consciousness; and social components such as family, work and sexual satisfaction.

Judgments of overall wellbeing or coping

Several questionnaires (EORTC, SF36) ask for a person's overall judgment of quality of life.46,47 This judgment must not be confused with the aggregation of a summary score across different quality-of-life components, as preferred by other questionnaire designers48,49. At individual patient level, clinical experience teaches that some patients rate their overall quality of life as quite good when they are clearly very ill. We give an example later. In aggregate patient samples, regression analyses show that objective health variables and self-reported health variables do not fully explain the variance of global quality of life11,12. A famous example is the work of Brickman et al. showing that, after an adaptation period of one year, paraplegic accident victims and lottery winners reported practically the same level of overall wellbeing50—a phenomenon known as the wellbeing paradox51. Seemingly, an overall judgment of quality of life includes a component of coping52.

QUALITY OF LIFE PROFILE AS A TOOL FOR INDIVIDUAL PATIENT CARE

How can quality-of-life measurement contribute to care of the individual patient? What changes or differences are clinically important? Is a value of 48 on a 0-100 scale good or bad quality of life; is a change from 48 to 61 an important improvement? Despite research from various directions53,54,55,56, there is so far no consensus on these issues. Here we propose an approach based on our outcome concept and embedded in clinical reality. Since doctors like to work with visual material58,59,60 we present quality-of-life profiles graphically61. For this purpose the individual answers to the EORTC questionnaire items (50-60 altogether; 30 items core questionnaire; 20-30 additional symptom/disease specific module) have to be transformed into quality-of-life scores. Individual items of the EORTC questionnaire that correspond to one content dimension are grouped, summed and then linearly transformed into a 0-100 point scale in which 0 represents the worst outcome. About ten scores are arranged vertically and individual patient data can be displayed on a chart like other information in the medical record.

For two reasons, a score value of 50 can be regarded as the threshold level for intervention. First, the EORTC QL questionnaire items tap into patients' degree of impairment and answers can be given on response scales of 1-4 (1=not at all, 4=very much so). Responses can be easily dichotomized with 3 and 4 the ‘bad’ side and 1 and 2 the ‘good’ side62. Second, according to psychological theories on adaptation level and social comparison, persons generally try to perform slightly better than average63. Clearly, therefore, values under the average (50) are undesirable; the goal of therapy is to bring patients over 50. Note that, at least for global quality of life or overall happiness, a value of 100 is not necessarily desirable all the time. Highest levels of happiness also involve intense physiological arousal which may be burdensome and distracting if it lasts too long. Therefore, ‘good’ or desirable overall quality of life is usually between 60 and 80 points on a 0-100 scale51.

Although a threshold level of 50 seems reasonable, it is clearly not an immutable law. Clinical research may tell us that a focus on extreme levels is more useful. Furthermore, the threshold must also take into account cultural and individual differences16,64. In medicine, the norm can change, as illustrated recently in hypertension65. Until this issue of the threshold is settled by research, we shall use the 50-point score as a starting point.

Two patients

Let us illustrate how our concept of outcome and quality of life relates to individual patients and their treatment. Two patients, A and B, were enrolled in a randomized study of G-CSF prophylaxis in patients undergoing operation for colorectal cancer66. Quality of life was assessed pre-operatively, at discharge and, at months two and six postoperatively. The last assessment included an in-depth standardized interview in which the patient was invited to report on the most important aspects of the illness episode.

In terms of objective health status these two patients were very different (Box 2). Patient A had a T1 tumour of the rectum, giving him a 5-year survival chance of 90%. His postoperative complications included focal anastomosis leakage and neurologically disturbed micturition until six months postoperatively. Patient B had a T4 tumour (5-year survival chance 50%). Furthermore, postoperative complications included not only disturbed micturition but also a cerebral infarction. Let us now turn to global quality of life (Figure 2). For the entire period patient B, more severely ill, displayed higher global quality of life than patient A. This is particularly evident in the area under the curve (Figure 3). These results are striking because they do not follow the lead of the individual score points. Interestingly, patient A displays no < 50 values. In contrast patient B, despite numerous lower scores, particularly in role and cognitive functioning, has an acceptable overall quality of life throughout the follow-up.

Figure 2
Quality-of-life profiles of two patients
Figure 3
Global quality of life (QL) of patients A and B before and after an operation. AUC=Area under the curve
Box 2
Characteristics of patients A and B

As a next step background information (basic psychological variables, medical record, interview with patient) has to be inspected. Patient A expected healing from therapy; that is a positive sign and should have helped in recovery. The interview at six months revealed why his recovery had been relatively slow. He explained that the stoma had been the most important therapy-related problem. Although it functioned, it was psychologically a big shock (it was removed four months postoperatively). When asked about his best experience, he mentioned his leisure time, although he had too much. When asked what was the most important event, he named nothing specific except that he was still alive. Furthermore, he said that there were no important changes in his life. It is very striking that this patient never mentioned his family or friends. All in all, he gave the impression of a rather empty life.

Patient B also had expectations of cure, and at the onset of therapy had a lower degree of negative affect than patient A. This may partly explain why his overall quality of life was better despite postoperative troubles including a stroke. At the six-months interview he said that his worst experience had been the diagnosis and his best had been getting back to his family. His medical condition was preventing him from fulfilling previous social commitments, but his family and friends were supportive and he was getting lots of visits. Thus, unlike patient A, this patient had a very active social and family life.

Consequences for individual care and regional health care

These examples show that quality-of-life profiles can be read like an electrocardiogram or any other functional test. The profile does not replace the conversation between doctor and patient. On the contrary it may stimulate useful discussion—as in patient A, where the interview disclosed reasons for his poor recovery. We would advise such a patient to take up social activities or a hobby that make better use of his leisure time. Patient B might benefit from physical therapy and advanced stoma therapy; he has to be persuaded that the stoma does not preclude social activities.

Our experience with quality-of-life assessment in patients is promising. Patients accept this endpoint and are happy to be asked about matters that ‘really count’ for them. Doctors, too, are beginning to accept quality of life as an endpoint and a diagnostic tool. In an implementation study, quality-of-life profiles have been routinely sent to the doctors in charge of follow-up treatment of cancer patients. Through various implementation strategies (academic detailing, outreach visits, continuing medical education) doctors have been taught that 50 points is the level for intervention and lower values may indicate a clinically relevant deficit. All the doctors found the profile easy to understand, and more than half said it led to more information and better communication67.

On the basis of our experience with quality-of-life assessment, we restructured follow-up care for cancer patients in our region67,68. A list of treatment options that appear beneficial for improving quality of life and that are available in the region has been compiled69. The major domains of intervention doctors can choose from and that can be evaluated by follow-up quality of life assessments are:

  • Pain relief and therapy
  • Physiotherapy
  • Psychotherapy
  • Improving physical fitness (sports and nutrition)
  • Social rehabilitation.

Furthermore, guidelines now include quality of life as an essential endpoint for care68,70,71.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article we have avoided getting caught up in arguments about what is quality of life and whether it can be assessed. Instead we have tried to see how the features assessed under the heading ‘quality of life’ relate to measurable indices in the clinical arena. Recent advances in research methodology are likely to enhance our understanding of these relations72.

Acceptance of the quality-of-life concept within the medical community will depend on its contributions to better understanding of patients and of treatment effects. Thus, we propose a profile format that clinicians readily understand, in which deficits in particular domains are easily recognized. The reasons why a particular deficit exists, however, is not always evident from the profile. The patient has to explain75. In other words, a quality-of-life profile is not a substitute but a starting-point for a patient—doctor interaction. The interaction can be structured and efficient, and the benefit of any action taken can then be assessed by a further profile. There is no contradiction between this empirical approach, and doing something ‘humanistic’ for the patient.

Acknowledgments

The work described in this article was funded by a grant from the German Ministry of Health (FB 2-43332-70/6) and by a grant from the German Science Foundation (Ba 1560/2-2). We thank S Hainbach and S Thommes for computer support and managing the data files, R Albrecht for secretarial support and M Middeke for the graphics.

References

1. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Wood-Dauphinée S, Bullinger M, Eypasch E. Meran consensus conference on quality-of-life assessment in surgery. Part I. Theor Surg 1991;6: 123-65
2. Bottomley A. The cancer patient and quality of life. Oncologist 2002;7: 120-5 [PubMed]
3. ASCO. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996;14: 671-9 [PubMed]
4. Wulff H. The two cultures of medicine: objective facts versus subjectivity and values. J R Soc Med 1999;92: 549-52 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Hartmann D. Philosophische Grundlagen der Psychologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998
6. Bowling A. Measuring Disease. A Review of Disease-specific Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001
7. Lorenz W, Troidl H, Solomkin JS, et al. Second step: testing outcome measurements. World J Surg 1999;23: 768-80 [PubMed]
8. Troidl H, Wechsler AS, McKneally MF. How to choose a relevant endpoint. In: Troidl H, McKneally MF, Mulder DS, Wechsler AS, McPeek B, Spitzer WO, eds. Surgical Research, Basic Principles and Clinical Practice. New York: Springer, 1998: 303-19
9. West SG, Wicklund RA. A Primer of Social Psychological Theories. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1980
10. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 3rd edn. Brussels: EORTC, 2001
11. Koller M, Kussmann J, Lorenz W, et al. Symptom reporting in cancer patients: the role of negative affect and experienced social stigma. Cancer 1996;77: 983-95 [PubMed]
12. Koller M, Heitmann K, Kussmann J, Lorenz W. Symptom reporting in cancer patients II: Relations to social desirability, negative affect, and self-reported health behaviors. Cancer 1999;86: 1609-20 [PubMed]
13. Koller M, Jenkins M, Kopp I, Rothmund M, Lorenz W. Positives Denken und Lebensqualität bei chirurgischen Karzinompatienten. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie—Forumband 2002;31: 571-3
14. Watson D, Pennebaker JW. Health complaints, stress, and distress: exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychol Rev 1989;96: 234-54 [PubMed]
15. Hull JG, Tedlie JC, Lehn DA. Modeling the relation of personality variables to symptom complaints: The unique role of negative affectivity. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. London: Sage, 1995: 217-35
16. Diener E, Suh EM. National differences in subjective well-being. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, eds. Well-being: the Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999: 434-50
17. Fayers PM. Interpreting quality of life data: population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer 2001;37: 1331-4 [PubMed]
18. Wicklund RA. Orientation to the environment vs. preoccupation with human potential. In: Sorrentino RM, Higgins ET, eds. Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: Guilford Press, 1986: 64-95
19. Salovey P, Birnbaum D. Influence of mood on health-relevant cognitions. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989;57: 539-51 [PubMed]
20. Wagner K, Koller M, Keil A, et al. Strahlentherapie bei chirurgischen und nichtchirungischen Patienten. Therapieerwartungen, Lebensqualität und Arzteinschätzungen. Chirurg 1998;69: 252-8 [PubMed]
21. Koller M, Lorenz W, Wagner K, et al. Expectations and quality of life of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. J R Soc Med 2000;93: 621-8 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Taylor SE. Positive Illusions: Creative Self-deception and the Healthy Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1989
23. Kreitler S. Denial in cancer patients. Cancer Invest 1999;17: 514-34 [PubMed]
24. Nies C, Celik I, Lorenz W, et al. Outcome nach minimal-invasiver Chirurgie. Qualitative Analyse und Bewertung der klinischen Relevanz von Studienendpunkten durch Patient und Arzt. Chirurg 2001;72: 19-29 [PubMed]
25. Mackie JL. The Cement of the Universe. A Study of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980
26. Abele A, Hermer P. Mood influences on health-related judgments: appraisal of own health versus appraisal of unhealthy behaviours. Eur J Soc Psychol 1993;23: 613-25
27. Croyle RT, Uretski MB. Effects of mood on self-appraisal of health status. Health Psychol 1987;6: 239-53 [PubMed]
28. Pennebaker JW. The Psychology of Physical Symptoms. New York: Springer, 1982
29. Koller M, Wicklund RA. Press and task difficulty as determinants of preoccupation with person descriptors. J Exp Soc Psychol 1988;24: 256-74
30. Koller M, Wicklund RA. Non-ideal fit to a performance demand and the emergence of performance-related person categories. Eur J Soc Psychol 1994;24: 453-68
31. Gendolla GHE. More evidence for the ascription of personal characteristics as reaction to person—task incompatibility. J Res Pers 2002;36: 86-95
32. Waibel MC, Wicklund RA. Inferring competence from incompetence: An ironic process associated with person descriptors. Eur J Soc Psychol 1994;24: 443-52
33. Novak A, Vallacher RR. Dynamic Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1998
34. Eimer M. Konzepte von Kausalität. Verursachungszusammenhänge und psychologische Begriffsbildung. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, 1987
35. Collingwood RG. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969
36. Fallowfield L. Truth sometimes hurts but deceit hurts more. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1997;809: 525-36 [PubMed]
37. Fallowfield L. Giving sad and bad news. Lancet 1993;341: 476-8 [PubMed]
38. Fawzy FI, Fawzy NW, Hyun CS, Gutherie D, Fahey JL, Morton D. Malignant melanoma: effects of an early structured psychiatric intervention, coping, and affective state on recurrence and survival six years later. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993;50: 681-9 [PubMed]
39. Fawzy FI, Kemeny ME, Fawzy NW, et al. A structured psychiatric intervention for cancer patients: 1. Changes over time in immunological measures. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 1990;47: 729-35 [PubMed]
40. Spiegel D, Bloom JR, Kraemer H, Gottheil E. Psychological support for cancer patients. Lancet 1989;ii: 888-91 [PubMed]
41. Stiggelbout AM, de Haes JCJM. Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol 2001;19: 220-30 [PubMed]
42. Bullinger M. Gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität und subjektive Gesundheit. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 1997;47: 76-91 [PubMed]
43. Lorenz W. Outcome: definition and methods of evaluation. In: Troidl H, McKneally MF, Mulder DS, Wechsler AS, McPeek B, Spitzer WO, eds. Surgical Research. Basic Principles and Clinical Practice, 3rd edn. New York: Springer, 1998: 513-20
44. Higginson IJ, McCarthy M. A comparison of two measures of quality of life: their sensitivity and validity for patients with advanced cancer. Pall Med 1994;8: 282-90 [PubMed]
45. Hearn J, Higginson IJ. Outcome measures in palliative care for advanced cancer patients: a review. J Public Health Med 1997;19: 193-9 [PubMed]
46. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Curren D, Groenvold M. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 2nd edn. Brussels: EORTC
47. Stewart AL, Ware JE. Measuring Functioning and Well-being: the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991
48. Basler HD. Marburger Fragebogen zum habituellen Wohlbefinden. Schmerz 1999;13: 385-91 [PubMed]
49. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993;11: 570-9 [PubMed]
50. Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R. Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? J Pers Soc Psychol 1978;36: 917-27 [PubMed]
51. Staudinger UM. Viele Gründe sprechen dagegen, und trotzdem geht es vielen Menschen gut: Das Paradox des subjektiven Wohlbefindens. Psychol Rundsch 2000;51: 185-97
52. Lazarus RS. Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosom Med 1993;55: 234-47 [PubMed]
53. Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, Selby PJ. Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor—patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer 2002;86: 51-9 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
54. Osoba D. Interpreting the meaningfulness of changes in health-related quality of life scores: lessons from studies in adults. Int J Cancer 1999;12(suppl.): 132-7 [PubMed]
55. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316: 690-3 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10: 407-15 [PubMed]
57. Schwartz R, Hinz A. Reference data for the quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general German population. Eur J Cancer 2001;37: 1345-51 [PubMed]
58. Larkin JH, Simon HA. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognit Sci 1987;11: 65-99
59. Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956;63: 81-97 [PubMed]
60. Wyatt JC, Wright P. Improving medical records, part 1: can records be improved? Lancet 1998;280: 1321-4
61. Koller M, Kussmann J, Lorenz W, Rothmund M. Die Messung von Lebensqualität in der chirurgischen Tumornachsorge: Methoden, Probleme und Einsatzmöglichkeiten. Chirurg 1994;65: 333-9 [PubMed]
62. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: Wiley, 2000
63. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relations 1954;7: 117-40
64. Zola IK. Culture and symptoms—An analysis of patients' presenting complaints. Am Social Rev 1966;31: 615-30 [PubMed]
65. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 1998;351: 1755-62 [PubMed]
66. Bauhofer A, Lorenz W, Stinner B, et al. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in the prevention of postoperative infectious complications and sub-optimal recovery from operation in patients with colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4). Protocol of a controlled clinical trial developed by consensus of an international study group. Part two: design of the study. Inflamm Res 2001;50: 187-205 [PubMed]
67. Albert US, Koller M, Lorenz W, et al. Quality of life-profile: from measurement to clinical application. Implementing a diagnostic tool of quality of life in the regional follow-up care of breast cancer patients. Breast (in press)
68. Hellriegel KP, Schulz KD. Nachsorge bei Mammakarzinom-Patientinnen. Empfehlungen einer Konsensus-Tagung. Forum DKG 1995;10: 272-4
69. Kopp I, Koller M, Rothmund M, Lorenz W, Mitglieder des Qualitätszirkels. Evaluation der Therapie von Patienten mit Rektumkarzinom: Ziele des Heilens (Outcomes) und Implementierung des Konzepts Lebensqualität in die medizinische Gesamtversorgung. Zentralbl Chir 2000;125: 940-6 [PubMed]
70. Schulz KD. Ärztliche Konzertierte Aktion und 10-Punkte-Programm zur Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. ZaeFQ 2000;94: 421-2
71. Junginger T, Hossfeld DK, Müller RP. Leitlinien zur Diagnostik und Therapie von Tumoren des Gastrointestinaltrakts und der Schilddrüse. Stuttgart: Demeter, 1999
72. Reis HT, Judd CM, eds. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
73. Wicklund RA. Multiple perspectives in person perception and theorizing. Theory Psychol 1999;9: 669-80

Articles from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Medicine Press
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...