Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials

G H Guyatt, C Bombardier, P X Tugwell, G H Guyatt, C Bombardier, P X Tugwell

Abstract

While measurement of quality of life is a vital part of assessing the effect of treatment in many clinical trials, a measure that is responsive to clinically important change is often unavailable. Investigators are therefore faced with the challenge of constructing an index for a specific condition or even for a single trial. There are several stages in the development and testing of a quality-of-life measure: selecting an initial item pool, choosing the "best" items from that pool, deciding on questionnaire format, pretesting the instrument, and demonstrating the responsiveness and validity of the instrument. At each stage the investigator must choose between a rigorous, time-consuming approach to questionnaire construction that will establish the clinical relevance, responsiveness and validity of the instrument and a more efficient, less costly strategy that leaves reproducibility, responsiveness and validity untested. This article describes these options and outlines a pragmatic approach that yields consistently satisfactory disease-specific measures of quality of life.

References

    1. Lancet. 1974 Nov 9;2(7889):1127-31
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(12):1003-7
    1. Health Serv Res. 1976 Winter;11(4):478-507
    1. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1977 Nov;16(4):257-9
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978 Aug;37(4):378-81
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1979 Dec;38(6):558-9
    1. JAMA. 1980 Nov 21;244(20):2286-90
    1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981 Jan;29(1):111-23
    1. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1980 Dec;34(4):281-6
    1. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):787-805
    1. Circulation. 1981 Dec;64(6):1227-34
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1981;34(12):585-97
    1. Chest. 1982 Nov;82(5):538-42
    1. J Rheumatol. 1982 Sep-Oct;9(5):753-7
    1. J Rheumatol. 1982 Sep-Oct;9(5):789-93
    1. Cancer. 1984 May 1;53(9):2002-7
    1. Control Clin Trials. 1984 Sep;5(3):223-40
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
    1. Lancet. 1976 Apr 24;1(7965):899-900

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever