Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Oct;34(10):3029-3037.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-025-04045-3. Epub 2025 Aug 20.

Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study

Zhuxin Mao  1 , Aureliano Paolo Finch  2   3 , Shenaz Ahmed  4 , Guangjie Zhang  5 , Yifan Ding  5 , Zhihao Yang  6   7
Affiliations
Free article

Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study

Zhuxin Mao et al. Qual Life Res. 2025 Oct.
Free article

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

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).

References

    1. Karimi, M., & Brazier, J. (2016). Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics, 34(7), 645–649. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2015). Improving cross-sector comparisons: Going beyond the health-related QALY. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 13(6), 557–565. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. 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. - DOI
    1. 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. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. 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. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources