Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
This research was conducted by the authors at the WHO Centre for the Study of Quality of Life, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY UK.
We conducted an evaluation to find out how a novel quality of life (QoL) intervention containing guided individualized feedback was appraised. The importance of QoL was matched with QoL assessment for each subjective dimension, using graphical feedback. We examined whether this information was acceptable, feasible and valued beyond the clinical context, among the community.
Using a mixed-methods cross-sectional design, the intervention was piloted with 129 participants from communities and registered in primary care. WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL Importance scores were graphically matched by dimension. Results were inspected and interpreted with directed guidance to identify good and poor QoL. We report the post-intervention evaluation of feedback, including qualitative themes. Follow-up interviews among those expecting feedback to be helpful explored potential self-management and healthcare uses.
After feedback, 65 % reported changes in thoughts and perceptions of QoL, often describing insights as self-affirming. Goals or expectations changed for 34 %, and motivation to change was reported. Over 50 % evaluated the feedback as helpful in the short term or for the future. Follow-up interviews endorsed the value of the feedback and its usefulness in sharing with a healthcare professional (92 %), suggesting it would facilitate professionals’ understandings of patients and enable health advice to be targeted.
The benefits of using this novel feedback can be extended to the general population, as directed guidance aids interpretation, thereby saving health service costs. This complex pilot intervention needs testing in a blinded fully randomized controlled trial. Beyond independent self-management, graphs could be used during clinical decision-making.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Velikova, G., Keding, A., Harley, C., Cocks, K., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., et al. (2010). Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: Secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Cancer, 46(13), 2381–2388. CrossRefPubMed
Detmar, S. B., Aaronson, N. K., Wever, L. D. V., Muller, M., & Schornagel, J. H. (2000). How are you feeling? Who wants to know? Patients’ and oncologists’ preferences for discussing health-related quality-of-life issues. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(18), 3295–3301. PubMed
Department of Health. (2011). The operating framework for the NHS in England 2012/2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216590/dh_131428.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2013.
Gutteling, J. J., Darlington, A.-S. E., Janssen, H. L. A., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Busschbach, J. J. V., & Man, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of health-related quality-of-life measurement in clinical practice: A prospective, randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic liver disease and their physicians. Quality of Life Research, 17, 195–205. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Bossola, M., Murri, R., Onder, G., Turriziani, A., Fantoni, M., & Padua, L. (2010). Research physicians’ knowledge of health-related quality of life and perception of its importance in daily clinical practice. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 23(8), 43. CrossRef
Nurbai, M. (2000). Practice nurse perspectives on the use of quality of life information and assessment in routine practice. Bath: University of Bath.
De Wit, M., De Waal, H., Bokma, J. A., Haasnoot, K., Houdijk, M. C., Gemke, R. J., et al. (2008). Monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes improve psychosocial well-being—A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 31(8), 1521–1526. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Llewellyn, A., & Skevington, S. (2015). Using guided individualised feedback to review self-reported quality of life in health and its importance. Psychology & Health, 30(3), 301. CrossRef
Llewellyn, A. M. (2012). Understanding quality of life: Investigating the effects of individualised feedback on wellbeing. Bath: University of Bath.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
The WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization Quality Of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409. CrossRef
Donovan, J., & Saunders, C. (2005). Key issues in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research. In A. Bowling & S. Ebrahim (Eds.), Handbook of health research methods. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
World Health Organization. (2010). ICD-10. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed February 5, 2010.
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2005). Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(6), 508–518. CrossRef
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36. CrossRef
da Rocha, N. (2011). Evaluation of quality of life and importance given to spirituality/religiousness/personal beliefs (SRPB) in adults with and without chronic health conditions. Revista de psiquiatria clínica, 38(1), 19–23.
- Evaluating a new methodology for providing individualized feedback in healthcare on quality of life and its importance, using the WHOQOL-BREF in a community population
Alison M. Llewellyn
Suzanne M. Skevington
- Springer International Publishing