Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions

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

Abstract

Background

Individualized measures of health-related quality life (HRQL) have been used for decades and shown to provide unique information, but little work has been done to explain this uniqueness particularly across health conditions.

Aims

To estimate, across four health conditions, the magnitude of the association between scores derived from the Patient Generated Index (PGI) and those from fully standardized generic and disease-specific measures of the HRQL; to identify the extent to which the areas generated from the PGI are covered by the content of the fully standardized measures.

Methods

The PGI and other generic and disease-specific measures had been used in four different samples of people: stroke (n = 222), multiple sclerosis (MS; n = 185); advanced cancer (n = 173), and HIV+ (n = 690). Areas nominated on the PGI were harmonized to a standard nomenclature. Pearson correlations were estimated between PGI and other measures.

Results

Data from 1263 people indicated that PGI provided the lowest rating for HRQL across all health conditions. The areas nominated differed across conditions with walking/mobility: the most common for stroke (42%), work/school for MS (62%), health for HIV+ (97%), and fatigue for cancer (39%). Many of the aspects of health included in generic measures were not nominated using the PGI and vice versa. The highest correlations between the PGI and other measures were observed for people with MS, with correlations between 0.53 and 0.59; lowest correlations were observed for people with HIV and cancer, ≤0.33.

Discussion

The PGI scores reflect those aspects of quality of life that are important to patients in which they would most value an improvement. Heterogeneity in HRQL across health conditions is poorly discriminated using standardized measures. A “one-size-fits-all” approach to HRQL assessment may not provide the most useful representation of this important construct.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Joyce, C. R. B., Hickey, A., McGee, H. M., & O’Boyle, C. A. (2003). A theory-based method for the evaluation of individual quality of life: The SEIQoL. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 275–280.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Farrand, P., & Woodford, J. (2013). Measurement of individualised quality of life amongst young people with indicated personality disorder during emerging adulthood using the SEIQoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 829–838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Keenan, A. V. (2013). Mandibular implant supported complete dentures improved quality of life. Evidence Based Dentistry, 14(1), 19–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(11), 1109–1126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., Kliempt, P., & Ruta, D. (2007). Twelve years’ experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 705–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Garratt, A. M. (2015). Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2625–2635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Becker, G., Merk, C. S., Meffert, C., & Momm, F. (2014). Measuring individual quality of life in patients receiving radiation therapy: The SEIQoL-Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 23(7), 2025–2030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Griffiths, R., Jayasuriya, R., & Maitland, H. (2000). Development of a client-generated health outcome measure for community nursing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24(5), 529–535.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2003). Patient centered assessment of ankylosing spondylitis-specific health related quality of life: evaluation of the Patient Generated Index. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(4), 764–773.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klokkerud, M., Grotle, M., Lochting, I., Kjeken, I., Hagen, K. B., & Garratt, A. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the patient generated index in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in rehabilitation or self-management programmes. Rheumatology (Oxford), 52(5), 924–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lochting, I., Grotle, M., Storheim, K., Werner, E. L., & Garratt, A. M. (2014). Individualized quality of life in patients with low back pain: Reliability and validity of the Patient Generated Index. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(8), 781–787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McGee, H. M., O’Boyle, C. A., Hickey, A., O’Malley, K., & Joyce, C. R. (1991). Assessing the quality of life of the individual: the SEIQoL with a healthy and a gastroenterology unit population. Psychological Medicine, 21(3), 749–759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., & Russell, I. T. (1999). Patient centred assessment of quality of life for patients with four common conditions. Quality in Health Care, 8(1), 22–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Tully, M., & Cantrill, J. (2002). The test-retest reliability of the modified Patient Generated Index. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7(2), 81–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Witham, M. D., Fulton, R. L., Wilson, L., Leslie, C. A., & McMurdo, M. E. (2008). Validation of an individualised quality of life measure in older day hospital patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DE Beaton, Hogg-Johnson, S., & Bombardier, C. (1997). Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(1), 79–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Agt, H. M., Essink-Bot, M. L., Krabbe, P. F., & Bonsel, G. J. (1994). Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine, 39(11), 1537–1544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Witham, M. D., Crighton, L. J., & McMurdo, M. E. (2007). Using an individualised quality of life measure in older heart failure patients. International Journal of Cardiology, 116(1), 40–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Macduff, C., & Russell, E. (1998). The problem of measuring change in individual health-related quality of life by postal questionnaire: Use of the patient-generated index in a disabled population. Quality of Life Research, 7(8), 761–769.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Prince, P. N., & Gerber, G. J. (2001). Measuring subjective quality of life in people with serious mental illness using the SEIqoL-DW. Quality of Life Research, 10(2), 117–122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tavernier, S. S., Totten, A. M., & Beck, S. L. (2011). Assessing content validity of the patient generated index using cognitive interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 21(12), 1729–1738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(4), 403–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith, H. J., Taylor, R., & Mitchell, A. (2000). A comparison of four quality of life instruments in cardiac patients: SF-36, QLI, QLMI, and SEIQoL. Heart, 84(4), 390–394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jenkinson, C., Stradling, J., & Petersen, S. (1998). How should we evaluate health status? A comparison of three methods in patients presenting with obstructive sleep apnoea. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 95–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jolles, B. M., Buchbinder, R., & Beaton, D. E. (2005). A study compared nine patient-specific indices for musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(8), 791–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Broberger, E., Tishelman, C., von Essen, L., Doukkali, E., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2007). Spontaneous reports of most distressing concerns in patients with inoperable lung cancer: At present, in retrospect and in comparison with EORTC-QLQ-C30+ LC13. Quality of Life Research, 16(10), 1635–1645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mayo, N. E., Anderson, S., Barclay, R., et al. (2015). Getting on with the rest of your life following stroke: A randomized trial of a complex intervention aimed at enhancing life participation post stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9, 1198–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuspinar, A., & Mayo, N. E. (2013). Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Aburub, A. S., Gagnon, B., Rodriguez, A. M., & Mayo, N. E. (2016). Using a personalized measure (Patient Generated Index (PGI)) to identify what matters to people with cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24(1):437–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mayo, N. E., Brouillette, M. J., & Fellows, L. K. (2016). Understanding and optimizing brain health in HIV now: Protocol for a cohort multiple randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurology, 16(8), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shahrbanian, S., Duquette, P., Ahmed, S., & Mayo, N. E. (2015). Pain acts through fatigue to affect participation in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research. 25(2):477–491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez, A. M., Mayo, N. E., & Gagnon, B. (2013). Independent contributors to overall quality of life in people with advanced cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 108(9), 1790–1800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Second revision ed. Geneva.

  35. Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(1), 59–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D. (2016). http://www.euroqol.org/.

  37. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Poissant, L., Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., & Clarke, A. E. (2003). The development and preliminary validation of a Preference-Based Stroke Index (PBSI). Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kuspinar, A., Bouchard, V., Moriello, C., & Mayo, N. E. (2016). Development of a bilingual MS-specific health classification system: The preference-based multiple sclerosis index. International Journal of MS Care, 18(2), 63–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuspinar, A., Pickard, S., & Mayo, N. E. (2016). Developing a valuation function for the preference-based multiple sclerosis index: Comparison of standard gamble and rating scale. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0151905.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Cohen, S. R., Mount, B. M., Strobel, M. G., & Bui, F. (1995). The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire: A measure of quality of life appropriate for people with advanced disease. A preliminary study of validity and acceptability. Palliative Medicine, 9(3), 207–219.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bruera, E., Kuehn, N., Miller, M. J., Selmser, P., & Macmillan, K. (1991). The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. Journal of Palliative Care, 7(2), 6–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. O’Connell, K. A., & Skevington, S. M. (2012). An international quality of life instrument to assess wellbeing in adults who are HIV-positive: A short form of the WHOQOL-HIV (31 items). AIDS and Behavior, 16(2), 452–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mayo, N. E., Moriello, C., Asano, M., van der Spuy, S., & Finch, L. (2011). The extent to which common health-related quality of life indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function. Quality of Life Research, 20(5), 621–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith R. The end of disease and the beginning of health. BMJ Blogs. 6-8-0008.

  46. Wong, M., Rietzschel, J., Mulherin, D., & David, C. (2009). Evaluation of a multidisciplinary outpatient pain management programme based at a community hospital. Musculoskeletal Care, 7(2), 106–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Patel, K. K., Veenstra, D. L., & Patrick, D. L. (2003). A review of selected patient-generated outcome measures and their application in clinical trials. Value Health, 6(5), 595–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Szabo, S. (1996). WHOQOL Assessment Instrument. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (2nd Ed. 355–362). Philadelphia: Lippincott and Raven.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kaplan, R. M. (1996). The quality of well-being index. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Camfield, L., & Ruta, D. (2007). ‘Translation is not enough’: using the Global Person Generated Index (GPGI) to assess individual quality of life in Bangladesh, Thailand, and Ethiopia. Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1039–1051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ahmed, S., Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hanley, J. A., & Cohen, S. R. (2005). Using the patient generated Index to evaluate response shift post-stroke. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2247–2257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kuspinar, A., Finch, L., Pickard, S., & Mayo, N. E. (2014). Using existing data to identify candidate items for a health state classification system in multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1445–1457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is a secondary data analysis of four different funded projects from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Terry Fox Foundation, and Canadian Stroke Network as part of the Network Centers of Excellence program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy E. Mayo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayo, N.E., Aburub, A., Brouillette, MJ. et al. In support of an individualized approach to assessing quality of life: comparison between Patient Generated Index and standardized measures across four health conditions. Qual Life Res 26, 601–609 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1480-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1480-6

Keywords

Navigation