Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » By Affiliations
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top 20 Journal Cited
 » Top 20 Cited
 » Top 20 Author Cited
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Approaches and Methodological as well as Interpretive Issues in Quality of Life Research in Malaysia

Hasanah Che Ismail, (2003) Approaches and Methodological as well as Interpretive Issues in Quality of Life Research in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 10 (2). pp. 60-65. ISSN 1394195X

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://www.medic.usm.my/publication/mjms/

Affiliations

Universiti Sains Malaysia, School of Medical Sciences, Dept. of Psychiatry

Abstract

Quality of life measures are designed to enable patients’ perspectives on the impact of health and healthcare interventions on their lives to be assessed and taken into account in clinical decision-making and research. This paper discusses some approaches, methodological as well as interpretative issues of health related quality of life research.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:Quality of life, methodological and interpretative issues, psychiatry
Subjects:R Medicine
ID Code:900

1. Spitzer W.O., Dobson A.J., Hall J. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34:585-597.

2. Guyatt G.H., Feeny D.H., Pao ick D.L. Measuring healthrelated quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118:622-9.

3. Gill, T.M., Feinstein A.R. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994;272:619-26.

4. Patrick D.L., Erickson P. Health status and health policy: Quality of life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993

5. Dimenas E.S., Dahlof C.G., Jern S.C., Wiklund I.K. Defining quality of life in medicine. Scand J Prim Health Care Suppl 1990; 1: 7-10

6. Ware J.E. & Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Medical Care June 1992, Vol. 30 No 6 page 473-483

7. Matthew F. Muldoon; Steven D. Barger; Janine D. Flory; Stephen B. Manuck. What are quality of life measurements measuring? British Medical Journal;London; Feb 14, 1998; 542 –545

8. Julia Addington-Hall; Lalit Kalra Who should measure quality of life? British Medical Journal; London; Jun 9, 2001; Vol: 322; 1417 – 1420.

9. Wilson I.B., Cleary P.D. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA.1995; 273:59-65.

10. Patrick D., Erickson P. Assessing health-related quality of life for clinical decision making. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, eds. Quality of Life, Assessment and Application. Lancaster, England: MTP Press; 1988: 9-49.

11 Meyerowitz B.E. Quality of life in breast cancer patients: the contribution of data to the care of patients. Eur J Cancer.1993; 29A(suppl 1): 59-S62.

12. Ganz P.A. Impact of quality of life outcomes on clinical practice. Oncology (Huntingt). 1995; 9(11, suppl): 61-65.

13. Wu A.W., Cagney K.A. The role of quality of life assessments in medical practice. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: LippincottRaven Publishers; 1996: 517-522.

14. Laliberte N., Cella D., Masters G, et al. Real-time clinical application of quality of life (QOL) assessment in lung cancer: a feasibility pilot (abstract). Qual Life Res. 2000; 9: 293. Abstract 1590.

15. Deyo R.A., Centor R.M. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39:897-906.

16. Jaeschke R., Guyatt G.H., Keller J., Singer 1. Interpreting changes in quality-of-life score in N of 1 randomized trials. Control Clin Trials.1991; 12(4, suppl): 2265-2335.

17. Bombardier C., Raboud J., Auranofin Cooperating Group. A comparison of health-related quality-of-life measures for rheumatoid arthritis research. Control Clin Trials. 1991; 12(4, suppl): 243S-2565.

18. Katz J.N., Larson M.G., Phillips C.B., Fossel A.H., Liang M.H. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992; 30:917-925.

19. Guyatt G.H., Kirshner B., Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol.1992; 45: 1341-1345.

20. Liang M.H., Larson M.G, Cullen K.E, Schwartz J.A. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985; 28: 542-547.

21. Wyrwich K.W., Tierney W.M., Wolinsky F.D. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 861-873.

22. Cella D., Bullinger M.; Scott C. & Barofsky I. Group vs. individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clinic Proceedings; Rochester; Apr 2002; vol 77, Issue 4: 384.

23. Stewart A.L, Greenfield S., Hays R.D., et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic

conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1989; 262: 907-913.

24. Sprangers A.G., Moinpour C.M., Moynihan T.J, Patrick

D.L. et al. Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicans Mayo Clinic Proceedings; Rochester; Jun 2002; vol 77, Issue 6:561

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
   
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.