Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 4/2019

13-11-2018 | Review

Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal

Auteurs: Sana Ishaque, Jeffrey A. Johnson, Sunita Vohra

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly recognized for its importance in health research. As there is increasing recognition of the inter-individual difference in response to therapeutic interventions, it may be helpful to apply individualized measures of HRQL. The MYMOP is a commonly used example of such measures, although several adaptations have been developed.

Objective

This review was conducted to identify adaptations of MYMOP, and evaluate the measurement properties of MYMOP and its adaptations.

Methods

Adaptations were identified using MYMOP website and personal communication, supplemented by a SCOPUS search in April 2017. Bibliographies of included studies were hand-searched. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties.

Results

Sixteen studies were included in this review. Adaptations were developed to evaluate individualized therapies in cancer, psychiatry, and acupuncture. The included measures were MYMOP, measure yourself concern and wellbeing, psychological outcome profiles (PSYCHLOPS), and MYMOP-pictorial (MYMOP-P). The quality of the measurement properties varied; none of the included measures met all currently recommended quality criteria for measurement properties.

Conclusion

Current literature provides evidence that MYMOP and its adaptations offer individualized assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and thereby provide a means to understand heterogeneity of treatment effects. However, current recommendations for psychometric testing suggest further validation of these measures would be beneficial.
vorige artikel Communication changes with laryngectomy and impact on quality of life: a review
volgende artikel Perceived social support from teachers and classmates does not moderate the inverse association between body mass index and health-related quality of life in adolescents
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136. CrossRef
2.
Mayo, E. N., et al. ISOQOL Dictionary of Quality of Life and Health Outcomes Measurement. 2015; First Edition.
3.
Sales, C. M. D. (2017). Seeing the person in the patient: Making the case for individualized proms in mental healthcare. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 13(3), 184–187. CrossRef
4.
Sales, C. M. D., & Alves, P. C. G. (2016). Patient-centred assessment in psychotherapy: A Review of individualized tools. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 23(3), 265–283.
5.
Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expectations, 20(1), 11–23. CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bowling, A. (1995). What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1447–1462. CrossRef
7.
Carr, A. J., Gibson, B., & Robinson, P. G. (2001). Measuring quality of life is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? British Medical Journal, 322, 1240–1243. CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ostenfeld-Rosenthal, A., & Johannessen, H. (2014). How to capture patients’ concerns and related changes: Comparing the MYCaW questionnaire, semi-structured interview and a priority list of outcome areas. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 22, 690–700. CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ernst, E., & Hung, S. K. (2011). Great expectations: What do patients using complementary and alternative medicine hope for? Patient, 4, 89–101. CrossRefPubMed
10.
Varadhan, R., Segal, J. B., Boyd, C. M., Wu, A. W., & Weiss, C. O. (2013). A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 818–825. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Dahabreh, I. J., Hayward, R., & Kent, D. M. (2016). Using group data to treat individuals: Understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. International Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 2184–2193.
12.
Aburub, A. S., & Mayo, N. E. (2017). A review of the application, feasibiliyt, and the psychometric properties of the individualized measures in cancer. Quality of Life Research, 26, 1091–1104. CrossRefPubMed
13.
Wettergren, L., Kettis-Lindblad, Å, Sprangers, M., et al. (2009). The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualized quality-of-life instrument: a systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 18, 737–746. CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hickey, A. M., Bury, G., O’Boyle, C. A., Bradley, F., O’Kelly, F. D., & Shannon, W. (1996). A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): Application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. BMJ, 313, 29–33. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Moons, P., Marquet, K., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2004). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the “schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life-direct weighting” (SEIQoL-DW) in congenital heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 27. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Lhussier, M., Watson, B., Reed, J., & Clarke, C. L. (2005). The SEIQoL and functional status: How do they relate? Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19, 403–409. CrossRefPubMed
17.
Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., et al. (2007). Twelve uears-experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16, 705–715. CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mayo, N. E., Aburub, A., Brouillette, M. J., et al. (2017). In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions. Quality of Life Research, 26, 601–609. CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The patient-generated index. Medical Care, 32, 1109–1126. CrossRefPubMed
20.
Paterson, C. (1996). Measuring outcomes in primary care: A patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ, 312, 1016–1020. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research., 27, 1147. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42. CrossRef
23.
24.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745. CrossRefPubMed
25.
Quality of life and pharmaco-economics in clinical trials (Book Review) R. Launois. Quality of Life Research, 1 January 1997, Vol. 6(1), pp. 97-98 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
26.
Chen, A. Y., Frankowski, R., Bishop-Leone, J., Hebert, T., Leyk, S., Lewin, J., & Goepfert, H. (2001). The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: The M. D. anderson dysphagia inventory. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 127, 870–876.
27.
Guyatt, G. H., Kirshner, B., & Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: What are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 1341–1345. CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ganz, P. A., Lee, J. J., & Siau, J. (1991). Quality of life assessment. an independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer, 67, 3131–3135. CrossRefPubMed
29.
Idler, E. L., & Angel, R. J. (1990). Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES-I epidemiologic follow-up study. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 446–452. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Ashworth, M., Shepherd, M., Christey, J., Matthews, V., Wright, K., Parmentier, H., Robinson, S., & Godfrey, E. (2004). A client-centred psychometric instrument: The development of “PSYCHLOPS“(“psychological outcome profile”). Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 4, 27. CrossRef
31.
Ashworth, M., Evans, C., & Clement, S. (2009). Measuring psychological outcomes after cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: A comparison between a new patient-generated measure “pSYCHLOPS” psychological outcome profiles and “hADS” hospital anxiety and depression scale. Journal of Mental Health, 18, 169–177. CrossRef
32.
Ashworth, M., Robinson, S., Evans, C., Shepherd, M., Conolly, A., & Rowlands, G. (2007). What does an idiographic measure (PSYCHLOPS) tell us about the spectrum of psychological issues and scores on a nomothetic measure (CORE-OM)? Primary Care and Community Psychiatry, 12, 7–12.
33.
Ashworth, M., Robinson, S., Godfrey, E., Parmentier, H., Shepherd, M., Christey, J., Wright, K., & Matthews, V. (2005). The experiences of therapists using a new client-centred psychometric instrument, “PSYCHLOPS” (“psychological outcome profile”). Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5, 37–41. CrossRef
34.
Ashworth, M., Robinson, S. I., Godfrey, E., Shepherd, M., Evans, C., Seed, P., Parmentier, H., & Tylee, A. (2005). Measuring mental health outcomes in primary care: The psychometric properties of a new patient-generated outcome measure, ‘PSYCHLOPS’ (‘psychological outcome profiles’). Primary Care Mental Health, 3, 261–270.
35.
Day, A. (2004). The development of the MYMOP pictorial version. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22, 68–71. CrossRefPubMed
36.
Day, A., & Kingsbury-Smith, R. (2004). An audit of acupuncture in general practice. Acupuncture in Medicine, 22, 87–92. CrossRefPubMed
37.
Evans, C., Ashworth, M., & Peters, M. (2010). Are problems prevalent and stable in non-clinical populations? problems and test-retest stability of a patient-generated measure, PSYCHLOPS (psychological outcome profiles), in a non-clinical student sample. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38, 431–439. CrossRef
38.
Cooke, H. J. (2000). Is the adapted “measure yourself medical outcome profile questionnaire an appropriate tool to evaluate the bristol cancer help centre’s supportive programme? Dissertation. University of Exeter
39.
Paterson, C., & Britten, N. (2000). In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes: A qualitative evaluation of the ‘measure yourself medical outcome profile’. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 5, 27–36. CrossRefPubMed
40.
Paterson, C. (2004). Seeking the patient’s perspective: A qualitative assessment of EuroQol, COOP-WONCA charts and MYMOP. Quality of Life Research, 13, 871–881. CrossRefPubMed
41.
Paterson, C., Langan, C. E., McKaig, G. A., Anderson, P. M., Maclaine, G. D. H., Rose, L. B., Walker, S. J., & Campbell, M. J. (2000). Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: The measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Quality of Life Research, 9, 521–527. CrossRefPubMed
42.
Paterson, C., Thomas, K., Manasse, A., Cooke, H., & Peace, G. (2007). Measure yourself concerns and wellbeing (MYCaW): An individualised questionnaire for evaluating outcome in cancer support care that includes complementary therapies. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 15, 38–45. CrossRefPubMed
43.
Polley, M. J., Seers, H. E., Cooke, H. J., Hoffman, C., & Paterson, C. (2007). How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: A method for use in cancer support care. Supportive Care Cancer, 15, 963–971. CrossRef
44.
45.
Peace, G., & Manasse, A. (2002). The cavendish centre for integrated cancer care: Assessment of patients’ needs and responses. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 10, 33–41. CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
Jolliffe, R., Seers, H., Jackson, S., Caro, E., Weeks, L., & Polley, M. J. (2015). The responsiveness, content validity, and convergent validity of the measure yourself concerns and wellbeing (MYCaW) patient-reported outcome measure. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 14, 26–34. CrossRefPubMed
48.
Seers, H. E., Gale, N., Paterson, C., Cooke, H. J., Tuffrey, V., & Polley, M. J. (2009). Individualised and complex experiences of integrative cancer support care: Combining qualitative and quantitative data. Supportive Care Cancer, 17, 1159–1167. CrossRef
49.
50.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651–657. CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lohr, K.N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205. CrossRefPubMed
53.
Valderas, J. M.. Ferrer, M.. Mendivil, J.. Garin, O.. Rajmil, L., Herdman, M.. Alonso, J., Scientific Committee on “Patient-Reported Outcomes” of the IRYSS Network. (2008). Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708. CrossRefPubMed
54.
Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., et al. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 5928. CrossRef
55.
Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA, 282(11), 1054–1060. CrossRefPubMed
56.
Greenland, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2001). On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics, 2(4), 463–471. CrossRefPubMed
57.
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1–12. CrossRef
58.
Buscemi, N., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Tjosvold, L., & Klassen, T. P. (2006). Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(7), 697–703. CrossRefPubMed
59.
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724. CrossRefPubMed
60.
de Wit, M., Delemarre-van de Waal, H. A., Bokma, J. A., Haasnoot, K., Houdijk, M. C., Gemke, R. J., & Snoek, F. J. (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, 1521–1526. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Metagegevens
Titel
Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal
Auteurs
Sana Ishaque
Jeffrey A. Johnson
Sunita Vohra
Publicatiedatum
13-11-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2046-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2019

Quality of Life Research 4/2019 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children of ill or substance abusing parents: examining factor structure and sub-group differences

OriginalPaper

Perceived social support from teachers and classmates does not moderate the inverse association between body mass index and health-related quality of life in adolescents

OriginalPaper

The weight-specific adolescent instrument for economic evaluation (WAItE): psychometric evaluation using a Rasch model approach

Review

The impacts of abnormal color vision on people's life: an integrative review

OriginalPaper

Is it possible to determine the level of functional impairment that distinguishes the patients with ADHD from those without ADHD?

Brief Communication

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)