Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study
- PMID: 40833673
- DOI: 10.1007/s11136-025-04045-3
Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study
Abstract
Purpose: To explore similarities and differences in perceptions of quality of life (QoL) outcome, among different groups of populations, including patients, informal carers and the healthy general publics.
Methods: This study used Q-methodology, which combined both qualitative and quantitative components, to investigate the subjective constructions of QoL across the groups. We developed a list of 35 Q-sample items and collected a total of 151 Q-sort data for use in the standard by-person factor analytic procedure designed for Q-methodology. We also conducted post-sort interviews and obtained qualitative information about why the participants ranked the statements in certain ways.
Results: We were able to identify four distinct viewpoints: Factor 1: Eat, sleep and other basic needs; Factor 2: Positive relationships, belongings and well-being; Factor 3: My own physical and mental health first; Factor 4: Physical health is the foundation of well-being. While Factor 4 was equally valued across all three categories of participants, Factor 2, which places a high value on positive relationships, was predominantly represented by carers. In contrast, patients tended to emphasise Factor 3, which focuses on individual feelings-particularly emotional and physical distress. Items related to pain, discomfort, and sleep were consistently identified as the most important across all four identified views.
Conclusions: This study presents the similarities and differences of the subjective constructions of QoL across patients, carers and the healthy general publics. It implies the variances of preferences in evaluating QoL, and such variances can consequently affect the measurement and evaluation of QoL.
Keywords: Health; Preferences; Q-methodology; Quality of life; Well-being.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: Zhuxin Mao, Aureliano Paolo Finch and Zhihao Yang are members of the EuroQol Group. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the EuroQol Research Foundation. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest. Ethical statement: This study received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee of Guizhou Medical University (Ethical Approval Number 2024-40).
Similar articles
-
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks.2025 Jul 6. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–. 2025 Jul 6. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–. PMID: 30726003 Free Books & Documents.
-
A New Measure of Quantified Social Health Is Associated With Levels of Discomfort, Capability, and Mental and General Health Among Patients Seeking Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Apr 1;483(4):647-663. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003394. Epub 2025 Feb 5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025. PMID: 39915110
-
Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 4;6(6):CD013557. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013557.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38837220 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 27;8(8):CD015705. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015705.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 39189465 Free PMC article.
-
Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 29;2014(4):CD007768. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007768.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. PMID: 24777444 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Determining the Content Validity of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-Y-3L, and CHU9D Instruments for Assessing Generic Child and Adolescent Health-Related Quality of Life: A Qualitative Study.Patient. 2025 Sep;18(5):523-537. doi: 10.1007/s40271-025-00743-9. Epub 2025 May 16. Patient. 2025. PMID: 40377866 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Karimi, M., & Brazier, J. (2016). Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics, 34(7), 645–649. - PubMed
-
- Makai, P., Brouwer, W. B., Koopmanschap, M. A., Stolk, E. A., & Nieboer, A. P. (2014). Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 102, 83–93.
-
- Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., Carlton, J., Connell, J., Devlin, N., Jones, K., Lovett, R., Naidoo, B., Rand, S., & Rejon-Parrilla, J. C. (2021). What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB? The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(7), 1067–1081. - PubMed - PMC
-
- Brazier, J., Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., Marten, O., Kreimeier, S., Luo, N., Mulhern, B., Pickard, A. S., Augustovski, F., & Greiner, W. (2022). The EQ-HWB: Overview of the development of a measure of health and wellbeing and key results. Value in Health, 25(4), 482–491. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources