Literature DB >> 9248312

Development of a direct weighting procedure for quality of life domains.

J P Browne1, C A O'Boyle, H M McGee, N J McDonald, C R Joyce.   

Abstract

The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life allows individuals to nominate the domains they consider most important to their quality of life and to use their own value system when describing the functional status and relative importance of those domains. The weights for domain importance are derived through a procedure called judgement analysis. As judgement analysis is impractical for individuals with cognitive impairment and in many clinical situations, a shorter, direct weighting procedure has been developed. To test the new procedure, 40 healthy individuals completed both direct and judgement analysis weightings, at t1 and 7-10 days later (t2). After a further 7-10 days (t3), they were asked to identify the weight profiles they had previously produced using each method. The weights produced by the two methods differed on average by 7.8 points at t1 and 7.2 points at t2. The direct weights changed on average by 4.5 points from t1 to t2, while the judgement analysis weights changed by 8.4 points. At t2, 55% of individuals were able to identify the direct weights they had previously produced. The new procedure demonstrates stability and validity but is not interchangeable with judgement analysis. The most appropriate ways of using and interpreting both procedures are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9248312     DOI: 10.1023/a:1018423124390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  14 in total

1.  The nature of importance perceptions: a test of a cognitive model.

Authors:  J P Cragin
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Perform       Date:  1983-04

Review 2.  Assessment of outcomes of health intervention.

Authors:  C D Jenkins
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 3.  The measurement of quality of life through the content analysis of verbal behavior.

Authors:  L A Gottschalk; F Lolas
Journal:  Psychother Psychosom       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 17.659

Review 4.  Clinical judgment analysis.

Authors:  J R Kirwan; D M Chaput de Saintonge; C R Joyce
Journal:  Q J Med       Date:  1990-09

5.  Age differences in decision making: a process methodology for examining strategic information processing.

Authors:  M M Johnson
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1990-03

Review 6.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

7.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  The measurement of patients' values in medicine.

Authors:  H Llewellyn-Thomas; H J Sutherland; R Tibshirani; A Ciampi; J E Till; N F Boyd
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  A M Hickey; G Bury; C A O'Boyle; F Bradley; F D O'Kelly; W Shannon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-06

10.  Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement.

Authors:  C A O'Boyle; H McGee; A Hickey; K O'Malley; C R Joyce
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-05-02       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  40 in total

Review 1.  Subjective outcome measurement--a primer.

Authors:  M P Tully; J A Cantrill
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  1999-06

2.  The effect of individually assessed preference weights on the relationship between holistic utilities and nonpreference-based assessment.

Authors:  S J Jansen; A M Stiggelbout; M A Nooij; J Kievit
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  How goal disturbance, coping and chest pain relate to quality of life: A study among patients waiting for PTCA.

Authors:  M A Echteld; T M van Elderen; L J van der Kamp
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Measuring subjective quality of life in people with serious mental illness using the SEIqoL-DW.

Authors:  P N Prince; G J Gerber
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  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

6.  A theory-based method for the evaluation of individual quality of life: the SEIQoL.

Authors:  C R B Joyce; A Hickey; H M McGee; C A O'Boyle
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Validation of an extended version of the SEIQoL-DW in a cohort of Hodgkin lymphoma' survivors.

Authors:  L Wettergren; M Björkholm; A Langius-Eklöf
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  The use, feasibility and psychometric properties of an individualised quality-of-life instrument: a systematic review of the SEIQoL-DW.

Authors:  L Wettergren; A Kettis-Lindblad; M Sprangers; L Ring
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Is the severity of congenital heart disease associated with the quality of life and perceived health of adult patients?

Authors:  P Moons; K Van Deyk; S De Geest; M Gewillig; W Budts
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 10.  Identifying and classifying quality-of-life tools for assessing pressure ulcers after spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Sander L Hitzig; Christina Balioussis; Ethne Nussbaum; Colleen F McGillivray; B Catharine Craven; Luc Noreau
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 1.985

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.