OBJECTIVE: To compare three different kinds of health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires available for use in patients suffering from schizophrenia: the SF-36 (a generic instrument), the QoLI (an instrument designed to a broad range of mental illnesses), the S-QoL (a questionnaire specific to schizophrenic patients), in terms of external validity and sensitivity to change. METHODS: Two hundred and five patients were included at D0 and one-third retested at D30. Socio-demographic data and clinical history were recorded, clinical evaluation comprised psychotic symptoms (PANSS), depression (Calgary depression scale for schizophrenia), global functioning (GAF), clinical severity (CGI), and extrapyramidal symptoms (ESRS). HRQL was assessed using the SF-36, the QoLI and the S-QoL. RESULTS: A better agreement is observed between the SF-36 and the S-QoL than between the QoLI and the two other instruments. S-QoL and SF-36 are more strongly correlated with clinical status than QoLI. Compared to the SF-36 and the QoLI, the S-QoL better discriminates patients with comorbidity from others. The S-QoL shows better responsiveness than the QoLI and the SF-36. CONCLUSION: For descriptive purpose, either generic tools like SF-36 or specific ones should be used, whereas when aiming at evaluating health treatment and care for schizophrenic patients, specific instruments like the S-QoL should be favoured.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three different kinds of health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires available for use in patients suffering from schizophrenia: the SF-36 (a generic instrument), the QoLI (an instrument designed to a broad range of mental illnesses), the S-QoL (a questionnaire specific to schizophrenicpatients), in terms of external validity and sensitivity to change. METHODS: Two hundred and five patients were included at D0 and one-third retested at D30. Socio-demographic data and clinical history were recorded, clinical evaluation comprised psychotic symptoms (PANSS), depression (Calgary depression scale for schizophrenia), global functioning (GAF), clinical severity (CGI), and extrapyramidal symptoms (ESRS). HRQL was assessed using the SF-36, the QoLI and the S-QoL. RESULTS: A better agreement is observed between the SF-36 and the S-QoL than between the QoLI and the two other instruments. S-QoL and SF-36 are more strongly correlated with clinical status than QoLI. Compared to the SF-36 and the QoLI, the S-QoL better discriminates patients with comorbidity from others. The S-QoL shows better responsiveness than the QoLI and the SF-36. CONCLUSION: For descriptive purpose, either generic tools like SF-36 or specific ones should be used, whereas when aiming at evaluating health treatment and care for schizophrenicpatients, specific instruments like the S-QoL should be favoured.
Authors: Pierre Michel; Karine Baumstarck; Christophe Lancon; Badih Ghattas; Anderson Loundou; Pascal Auquier; Laurent Boyer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: A G Nevarez-Flores; K Sanderson; M Breslin; V J Carr; V A Morgan; A L Neil Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: David P Folsom; Colin Depp; Barton W Palmer; Brent T Mausbach; Shahrokh Golshan; Ian Fellows; Veronica Cardenas; Thomas L Patterson; Helena C Kraemer; Dilip V Jeste Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Peter Molander; Peter Nordqvist; Marie Oberg; Thomas Lunner; Björn Lyxell; Gerhard Andersson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Carole Siani; Christian de Peretti; Aurélie Millier; Laurent Boyer; Mondher Toumi Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 4.147