Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the needs and quality of life of patients with HIV infection: development of theHIVOverview ofProblems-EvaluationSystem (HOPES)

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

Abstract

Objective: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability, validity etc.) of a comprehensive Quality of Life (QOL) tool, for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), that was adapted from a previously validated cancer tool. Design: Cross-sectional, patient completed written surveys and interviews. Setting: The Medical Centers serving HIV infected patients in the Los Angeles community including UCLA, community physicians, Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, and a County hospital: and additional data contributed from Johns Hopkins University Medical Center CMV Retinitis Clinic. Patients: Patients (n=318) with HIV infection including asymptomatic (37%), ARC (20%), AIDS (25%) and AIDS with Cancer (18%) receiving health services at one of the above sites. Measurements: The patients self-administered the newly developed instrument, the HOPES (HIVOverview ofProblems-EvaluationSystem), other QOL related tools including the Medical Outcomes Study instrument adapted for HIV (MOS-HIV) the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the Perceived Adjustment to Chronic Illness Scale (PACIS), and the Physical Activity Scale (PAS). Brief interview to assess the Karnofsky Performance Status Score (KPS). Measured sociodemographic characteristics included age, sex, race, HIV risk factor, education etc. Assessed medical history, current medications, HIV clinical classification. Main results: The sociodemographic and medical characteristics of the sample resemble those of the general population with HIV infection in this geographic area: 96% male, 28% nonwhite, 84% homosexual contact as risk factor, 75% receiving antiretroviral therapy. The adaptation of the cancer QOL instrument to HIV appears to have face and content validity according to patients and health professionals who care for HIV infected patients. Analyses of the psychometric properties found that the HOPES has a similar structure to its parent instrument following factor analyses which results in five summary scales representing the Physical, Psychosocial, Medical Interaction, Sexual and Significant Other/Partners domains in addition to a Global Score. Internal consistency of 35 subscales is high with a mean alpha coefficient of 0.82. Correlations of the HOPES summary scales with other QOL instruments are in the predicted directions. Comparing patients within the HIV clinical diagnostic categories on the HOPES Global, Physical, and Psychosocial Summary Scales indicates that Asymptomatic Patients have better QOL than symptomatic patients. This finding is also found in the other QOL instruments which provides evidence of construct validity. Conclusions: The HOPES is an excellent tool for identifying the problems and needs of patients with HIV infection and for assessing their quality of life. It is reliable, valid and acceptable to patients. The tool may be especially useful in developing a normative data base.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. FischlMA, RichmanDD, GriecoMH, et al. The efficacy of azidothymidine (AZT) in the treatment of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex.N Engl J Med 1987;317: 185–191.

    Google Scholar 

  2. LambertJS, SeidlinM, ReichmanRC, et al. 2′,3′-dideoxyinosine (ddi) in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS-related complex. A Phase I trial.N Engl J Med 1990;322: 1333–1340.

    Google Scholar 

  3. GrahamNMJ, ZegerSL, ParkLP, et al. The effects of survival of early treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection.N Engl J Med 1992;326: 1037–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  4. WuAW, MathewsWC, BryskLT, et al. Quality of life in a placebo-controlled trial of zidovudine in patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex.J Acquir Immune Defic Synd 1990;3: 683–690.

    Google Scholar 

  5. RagsdaleD, MorrowJR. Quality of life as a function of HIV classification.Nurs Res 1990;39: 355–359.

    Google Scholar 

  6. LongoMB, SprossJA, LockeAM. Identifying major concerns of persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: a replication.Clin Nurse Specialist 1990;4(1): 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  7. FawzyIF, NamirS, WolcottDL, MitsuyasuRT, GottliebMS. The relationship between medical and psychological status in newly diagnosed gay men with AIDS.Psychiatric Med 1989;7: 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  8. JohnsonJP, McCauleyCR, CopleyJB. The quality of life of hemodialysis and transplant patients.Kidney International 1982;22: 286–291.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McSweenyAJ, GrantI, HeatonRK, AdamsKM, TimmsRM. Life quality of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Arch Inter Med 1982;142: 473–478.

    Google Scholar 

  10. CellaDF, TulskyDS. Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects.Oncology 1990;4: 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  11. MorrisJN, SherwoodS. Quality of life of cancer patients at different stages in the disease trajectory.J Chronic Dis 1987;40: 545–553.

    Google Scholar 

  12. PadillaG, GrantM. Quality of life as a cancer nursing outcome variable.Adv Nurs Sci 1985;10: 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  13. GanzPA, SchagCAC, ChengH. Assessing the quality of life in newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients.J Clin Epid 1990;43: 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  14. AaronsonNK. Quality of life: What is it? How should it be measured?Oncology 1988;2: 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  15. SchipperH, LevittM. Measuring quality of life: Risks and benefits.Cancer Treat Rep 1985;69: 1115–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  16. WareJEJr. Conceptualizing disease impact and treatment outcomes.Cancer 1984;53 (suppl): 2316.

    Google Scholar 

  17. DonovanK, Sanson-FisherRW, RedmanS. Measuring quality of life in cancer patients.J Clin Oncol 1989;7: 959–968.

    Google Scholar 

  18. MoinpourCM, FeigelP, MetchB et al. Quality of Life end points in cancer clinical trials: Review and recommendations.J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;7: 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  19. SchagCC, HeinrichRL, GanzPA. Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations: An instrument for assessing cancer patients' rehabilitation needs.J Psychosocial Oncol 1983;1: 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  20. HeinrichRL, SchagCC, GanzPA. Living with cancer: The Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations.J Clin Psych 1984;40: 972–980.

    Google Scholar 

  21. SchagCC, HeinrichRL. The impact of cancer on daily living: a comparison with cardiac patients and healthy controls.Rehab Psych 1986;31: 157–167.

    Google Scholar 

  22. GanzPA, RofessartJ, PolinskyML, SchagCC, HeinrichRL. A comprehensive approach to cancer patients' needs assessment: The Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations (CIPS) and a companion interview.J Psychosocial Oncol 1986;4: 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  23. SchagCAC, HeinrichRL.CAncerRehabilitationEvaluationSystem (CARES): Manual. First Edition. Los Angeles: CARES Consultants, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ganz PA, Schag CC, Heinrich RL. Cancer Rehabilitation. In: Haskell CM, ed.Cancer Treatment, WB Saunders, 1990.

  25. SchagCAC, HeinrichRL, AadlandRL, GanzPA. Assessing problems of cancer patients: Psychometric properties of the Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations.Health Psych 1990;9: 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  26. SchagCAC, HeinrichRL. Developing a comprehensive tool: TheCAncerRehabilitationEvaluationSystem.Oncology 1990;4: 135–138.

    Google Scholar 

  27. SchagCAC, GanzPA, HeinrichRL.CAncerRehabilitationEvaluationSystem-Short-Form (CARES-SF): A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument.Cancer 1991;68: 1406–1413.

    Google Scholar 

  28. GanzPA, SchagCAC, LeeJJ, SimM-S. The CARES: A generic measure of health-related quality of life for cancer patients.Quality Life Res 1992;1: 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  29. SchagCAC, GanzPA, KahnB, PetersenL. HOPES: A quality of life tool for HIV (Abstract).Proceedings Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1992;11: 46.

    Google Scholar 

  30. KarnofskyDA, BurchenalJH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: McCleodCM, ed.Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949; 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  31. SchagCC, HeinrichRL, GanzPA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: Reliability, validity, and guidelines.J Clin Oncol 1984;2: 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  32. TarlovAR, WareJEJr, GreenfieldS, NelsonEC, PerrinE, ZubkoffM. The Medical Outcomes Study: an application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care.JAMA 1989;262: 925–930.

    Google Scholar 

  33. WareJE, SherbourneCD, DaviesAR. Developing and testing the MOS 20-item Short-Form health survey: a general population application. In: StewartAL, WareJE, eds.Measuring Functioning and Well-being: The Medical Outcome Study Approach. Durhan, NC; Duke University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  34. StewartAL, HaysRD, WareJE. The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population.Med Care 1988;26: 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  35. WuAW, RubinHR, MathewsWC et al. A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the Medical Outcomes Study. Preliminary validation in persons with early HIV infection.Med Care 1991;29: 786–798.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McnairDM, LorrM, DroppelmanLF.Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  37. CassilethBR, LuskEJ, MillerDS, et al. Psychosocial correlates of survival in advanced malignant disease.New Engl J Med 1985;312: 1551–1555.

    Google Scholar 

  38. GorskyRD, CallowayDH. Activity pattern changes with decreases in food energy intake.Human Biology 1983;55: 557–586.

    Google Scholar 

  39. BloomJR, GorskyRD, FobairP, et al. Physical performance at work and at leisure: validation of a measure of biological energy in survivors of Hodgkin's disease.J Psychosocial Oncology 1990;8: 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  40. RaheRH. Epidemiological studies of life change and illness.Int J Psychiatry in Med 1975;6: 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  41. RogentineGN, vanKammenDP, FoxBH, et al. Psychological factors in the prognosis of malignant melanoma: a prospective study.Psychosomatic Med 1979;41: 647–655.

    Google Scholar 

  42. GotayCC. Why me: Attributions and adjustment by cancer patients and their mates at two stages in the disease process.Soc Sci Med 1985;20: 825–831.

    Google Scholar 

  43. GoughIR, FurnivalCM, SchilderL, et al. Assessment of the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983;19: 1161–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  44. CronbachLJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika 1951;16: 297.

    Google Scholar 

  45. NunnallyJC.Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  46. GorsuchRL. Higher-order factors. In: GorsuchRL, ed.Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1983; 239–256.

    Google Scholar 

  47. SAS Institute Inc.SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version 6 4th Edition, Vol. 1. Cary N.C.: SAS Institute Inc., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ganz PA, Schag CAC, Kahn B, Petersen L, Hirji K. Describing the quality of life impact of HIV infection: Findings from studies with theHIVOverview ofProblems-EvaluationSystem (HOPES). Submitted for Publication.

  49. HaysRD, ShapiroMF. An overview of generic health-related quality of life measures for HIV research.Quality Life Res 1992;1: 91–97.

    Google Scholar 

  50. WachtelT, PietteJ, MorV, SteinM, FleishmanJ, CarpenterC. Quality of life in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection: measurement by the medical outcomes study instrument.Ann Int Med 1992;116: 129–137.

    Google Scholar 

  51. KaplanRM, AndersonJP, WuAW, MathewsWC, KozinF, OrensteinD. The quality of Well-being Scale.Med Care 1989;27: S27–S43.

    Google Scholar 

  52. KaplanRM, BushJW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis.Health Psychol 1982;1: 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  53. LandgrafJM, NelsonEC, HaysRD, et al. Assessing function: does it really make a difference: a preliminary evaluation of the acceptability and utility of the COOP function charts. In: LipkinM, ed.Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990: 150–165.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, UCLA, 1100 Glendon Ave, Suite 711, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    C. A. C. Schag, P. A. Ganz & B. Kahn

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, 1100 Glendon Ave, Suite 711, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    C. A. C. Schag

  3. Division of Cancer Control, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, 1100 Glendon Ave, Suite 711, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    C. A. C. Schag, P. A. Ganz & B. Kahn

  4. Department of Health Services, UCLA School of Public Health, UCLA, 1100 Glendon Ave, Suite 711, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    P. A. Ganz

  5. The BASE Unit, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, 1100 Glendon Ave, Suite 711, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    L. Petersen

Authors
  1. C. A. C. Schag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. A. Ganz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Kahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Jimmy Stophel who died of AIDS and whose sense of humour improved the quality of many people's lives.

This research was supported in part by the UCLA AIDS Clinical Research Center and CARES Consultants. To obtain information about the HOPES, please contact C. A. Coscarelli Schag, CARES Consultants, 2210 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 359, Santa Monica, CA 90403, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schag, C.A.C., Ganz, P.A., Kahn, B. et al. Assessing the needs and quality of life of patients with HIV infection: development of theHIVOverview ofProblems-EvaluationSystem (HOPES). Qual Life Res 1, 397–413 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704434

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704434

Key words

Search

Navigation