Skip to main content
Log in

Integrating health-related quality of life into cross-national clinical trials

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When planning to implement health-related quality of life (HRQL) assessment in a multinational clinical trial, there are at least four general considerations: the natural history of the disease or condition, the characteristics of the population, the treatment under consideration, and the structure and function of the clinical trial organization. Each of these considerations must be addressed simultaneously when planning, implementing and analysing a cross-national clinical trial. There are five relevant polar components of the natural history of a given disease or condition: (1) time frame (acute versus chronic); (2) life threat (yes versus no); (3) symptomatology (present versus absent); (4) symptom expression (episodic versus constant); and (5) functional impact (present versus absent). Differences in population characteristics, (e.g., age, conditions, co-morbidity), embedded within any cross-national trial, must be addressed conceptually prior to initiating the trial, methodologically when planning implementation, and statistically after the collection of the data. In terms of treatment, issues such as adverse and positive effects and timing of effects must be considered. The methods entailed in planning, implementing and analysing HRQL data will depend upon the degree of centralization of personnel and resources within any given clinical trial. The range of possibilities runs from complete centralization, in which all planning and coordination of data collection and transmittal is done by one office, to complete decentralization, in which the work is distributed to participating sites and interested investigators. Finally, successful implementation of HRQL data collection is enhanced by heightening awareness of the importance of, and value in, assessing HRQL in clinical trials. The investigator embarking on a treatment trial can extend the outcome inquiry into broader areas of function and well-being than those defined by the more traditional symptom profiles, morbidity and mortality outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brisbane FL, Womble M. Working with African Americans: The Professional's Handbook. Chicago, IL: HRDI International Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Flaherty HA, Gaviria FM, Pathak D, et al. Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatry research. J Nervous Mental Dis 1988; 176: 257–263.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Int Med 1978; 88: 251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Marin G, Marin BVO. Research with Hispanic Populations. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol 23). Newberry Park, CA: Sage, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dimenas E, Glise H, Hallerback B, et al. Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal disease. Improved possibility of the evaluation of treatment regimens? Scand J Gastroenterol 1993; in press.

  6. Kapan RM. Behaviour as the central outcome in health care. Am Psychol 1990; 45: 1211–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–487.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guyatt G, Townshend M, Berman LB, et al. A comparison of likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 1129–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, et al. Developing and evaluating cross-national instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 451–459.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 441–449.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aarsonson N. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials: methodological issues. Controlled Clin Trials 1989; 10: 195S-208S.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aaronson N. Assessing quality of life in patients in cancer clinical trials: common sense problems and common sense solutions. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A: 1304–1307.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cox DR, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher AE et al. Quality of life assessments: can we keep it simple?. J Royal Statis Soc 1992; 155: 353–393.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sadura A, Pater J, Osoba D, et al. Quality of life assessment: patient compliance with questionnaire completion. JNCI 1992; 84: 1023–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute. Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Report of the Workshop on Quality of Life Research in Cancer Clinical Trials. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, July 16–17, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cella, D.F., Wiklund, I., Shumaker, S.A. et al. Integrating health-related quality of life into cross-national clinical trials. Qual Life Res 2, 433–440 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422217

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422217

Key words

Navigation