Literature DB >> 2646490

Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.

D L Patrick1, R A Deyo.   

Abstract

Application of generic and specific measures of health status and quality of life to different diseases, conditions, states, and populations is increasing. Four strategies for using these measures are separate generic and specific measures, modified generic measures, disease-specific supplements, and batteries. The preferred strategy depends on project aims, methodological concerns, and practical constraints. Generic measures are necessary to compare outcomes across different populations and interventions, particularly for cost-effectiveness studies. Disease-specific measures assess the special states and concerns of diagnostic groups. Specific measures may be more sensitive for the detection and quantification of small changes that are important to clinicians or patients. Comparison studies are needed of the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of generic and disease-specific measures in the same population and in minority and age-specific groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2646490     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  389 in total

Review 1.  Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and regulatory issues. An assessment of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommendations on the use of HR-QOL measures in drug approval.

Authors:  G Apolone; G De Carli; M Brunetti; S Garattini
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Quality of life assessment in adults with type 1 Gaucher disease.

Authors:  B J Masek; K B Sims; C M Bove; M S Korson; P Short; D K Norman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  S J Coons; S Rao; D L Keininger; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Psychometric evaluation of the fatigue severity scale for use in chronic hepatitis C.

Authors:  L Kleinman; M W Zodet; Z Hakim; J Aledort; C Barker; K Chan; L Krupp; D Revicki
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Is subjective well-being a useful parameter for allocating resources among public interventions?

Authors:  A Gandjour
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2001

6.  A comparison of four quality of life instruments in cardiac patients: SF-36, QLI, QLMI, and SEIQoL.

Authors:  H J Smith; R Taylor; A Mitchell
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  Assessment of quality of life in a single centre dialysis population using the KDQOL-SF questionnaire.

Authors:  P Carmichael; J Popoola; I John; P E Stevens; A R Carmichael
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  The Danish approach to standards for economic evaluation methodologies.

Authors:  A Alban; M Gyldmark; A V Pedersen; J Søgaard
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Reassessing quality-of-life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; R J Jaeschke
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Adjusting distributions of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jian Sun
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.