Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments
- PMID: 12589870
- DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00537-1
Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments
Abstract
We assessed the relative responsiveness of generic and specific quality of life instruments in 43 randomized controlled trials that compared head-to-head 31 generic and 84 specific instruments. Using weighted effect size as the metric of responsiveness, we assessed the impact of instrument type, disease category, and magnitude of underlying therapeutic effect on responsiveness, and assessed the responsiveness of specific instruments relative to the corresponding domains of generic measures. In studies with a nonzero therapeutic effect, specific instruments (mean = 0.57) were significantly more responsive than generic instruments (mean = 0.39, P =.01), and than the corresponding domains of generic instruments (mean = 0.40, P =.03). Studies with low, medium, and high therapeutic effects showed a corresponding gradation in responsiveness differences between specific and generic instruments. We conclude that, overall, specific instruments are more responsive than generic tools, and that investigators may come to misleading conclusions about relative instrument responsiveness if they include studies in which the magnitude of the underlying therapeutic effect is zero.
Similar articles
-
On the generalizability of statistical expressions of health related quality of life instrument responsiveness: a data synthesis.Qual Life Res. 1998 Jan;7(1):11-22. doi: 10.1023/a:1008828720272. Qual Life Res. 1998. PMID: 9481147
-
Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients.Qual Life Res. 2007 Apr;16(3):509-22. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-9132-x. Epub 2006 Nov 8. Qual Life Res. 2007. PMID: 17091359
-
Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness.Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002 Dec;41(12):1380-7. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.12.1380. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002. PMID: 12468817
-
Quality of life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs.Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Feb;1(2):84-94. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199201020-00004. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992. PMID: 10146938 Review.
-
Measurement of health-related quality of life in heart failure.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Oct;22(4 Suppl A):185A-191A. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90488-m. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993. PMID: 8376691 Review.
Cited by
-
Health-related quality of life among children, young people and adults with esophageal atresia: a review of the literature and recommendations for future research.Qual Life Res. 2015 Oct;24(10):2433-45. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0975-x. Epub 2015 Apr 1. Qual Life Res. 2015. PMID: 25829227 Review.
-
Patients' perspectives on a new delivery model in primary care: A propensity score matched analysis of patient-reported outcomes in a Dutch cohort study.J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Apr;27(2):344-355. doi: 10.1111/jep.13426. Epub 2020 Jun 17. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021. PMID: 32701197 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of the active communication education program in improving the general quality of life of older adults who use hearing aids: a randomized clinical trial.BMC Geriatr. 2024 Oct 12;24(1):828. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05424-0. BMC Geriatr. 2024. PMID: 39395936 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women.Womens Health (Lond). 2015 Mar;11(2):225-38. doi: 10.2217/whe.14.66. Womens Health (Lond). 2015. PMID: 25776296 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Reference Values of the Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) from a General Population Sample in Italy.J Clin Med. 2023 Jan 6;12(2):491. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020491. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 36675420 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources