Quality of life instruments are essential tools for evaluating healthcare interventions, and COMPARE.EDU.VN offers comprehensive comparisons to aid in selection. This article provides A Comparative Review Of Generic Quality Of Life Instruments, exploring their applications, benefits, and limitations to help you make informed decisions. This comprehensive exploration covers health-related quality of life, HRQoL assessment, and quality of life measurement.
1. Introduction to Generic Quality of Life Instruments
The assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a crucial component of healthcare evaluation, influencing clinical practice and policy decisions. Numerous HRQOL instruments have been developed, broadly categorized as generic and specific. Generic instruments are designed for broad applicability across diverse populations and interventions, while specific measures target particular interventions or subpopulations. This review focuses on generic HRQOL instruments, examining their key characteristics to guide researchers and practitioners in selecting the most appropriate tool for their needs. Understanding the nuances of these instruments is paramount, and COMPARE.EDU.VN provides detailed comparisons to facilitate this process.
1.1 The Importance of HRQOL Assessment
HRQOL assessment plays a vital role in understanding the impact of diseases and treatments on individuals’ overall well-being. It goes beyond traditional clinical outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity, to capture the subjective experiences of patients. This includes physical, emotional, social, and functional aspects of life. By incorporating HRQOL measures, healthcare professionals gain a more holistic view of patient health, enabling them to tailor interventions to improve overall quality of life.
1.2 Generic vs. Specific HRQOL Instruments
Generic HRQOL instruments are designed to be applicable across a wide range of populations and conditions. They provide a broad overview of health status, allowing for comparisons between different groups and interventions. Examples include the SF-36, EQ-5D, and HUI. These instruments are useful for assessing the overall impact of a disease or treatment, regardless of the specific condition being studied.
Specific HRQOL measures, on the other hand, are tailored to specific diseases or conditions. They focus on aspects of health that are particularly relevant to the target population. For example, the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS) is designed for individuals with arthritis, while the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE) is used for those with epilepsy. Specific instruments are more sensitive to changes in health status within the target population but may not be suitable for comparisons across different conditions.
2. Overview of Selected Generic HRQOL Instruments
This review examines seven widely used generic HRQOL instruments:
- The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) health survey
- The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP)
- The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)
- The Dartmouth Primary care Cooperative Information Project (COOP) Charts
- The Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale
- The Health Utilities Index (HUI)
- The EuroQol Instrument (EQ-5D)
These instruments were selected based on their common usage and citation in the English language literature. Each instrument has unique characteristics, strengths, and limitations, which will be discussed in detail in the following sections. The choice of instrument depends on the specific purpose of the measurement, the characteristics of the population, and the environment in which the measurement is undertaken. At COMPARE.EDU.VN, we provide side-by-side comparisons to help you evaluate these factors.
3. Key Characteristics of HRQOL Instruments
The following six characteristics are essential in evaluating HRQOL instruments:
- Conceptual and measurement model
- Reliability
- Validity
- Respondent and administrative burden
- Alternative forms
- Cultural and language adaptations
These characteristics provide a framework for comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different instruments. Understanding these aspects is crucial for selecting the most appropriate tool for a given study or clinical setting. We delve into each of these characteristics in the following sections, offering insights into how they apply to the selected HRQOL instruments.
3.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model
The conceptual and measurement model defines the theoretical framework and the specific dimensions of health that the instrument aims to measure. Different instruments may emphasize different aspects of HRQOL, such as physical functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, and overall health perceptions. The model should be clearly defined and based on sound theoretical principles.
3.2 Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the instrument’s measurements. A reliable instrument should produce similar results when administered repeatedly to the same individual under similar conditions. Common measures of reliability include test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability. High reliability is essential for ensuring that the instrument provides accurate and dependable data.
3.3 Validity
Validity refers to the extent to which the instrument measures what it is intended to measure. A valid instrument should accurately reflect the underlying construct of HRQOL. There are several types of validity, including content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity. Content validity ensures that the instrument covers all relevant aspects of the construct. Criterion validity assesses the instrument’s correlation with other measures of the same construct. Construct validity examines the instrument’s ability to differentiate between groups known to differ on the construct.
3.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden
The respondent and administrative burden refers to the time, effort, and resources required to administer and complete the instrument. A high burden can lead to lower response rates and reduced data quality. Factors influencing burden include the length of the instrument, the complexity of the questions, and the mode of administration. Instruments with lower burden are generally preferred, especially in large-scale studies or clinical settings with limited resources.
3.5 Alternative Forms
Alternative forms of an instrument can be useful for reducing respondent burden, adapting to different modes of administration, or minimizing recall bias. Short forms, such as the SF-12, are abbreviated versions of longer instruments that provide a quick assessment of HRQOL. Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) uses algorithms to select questions based on the respondent’s previous answers, reducing the number of questions needed to obtain accurate data.
3.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations
Cultural and language adaptations are essential for ensuring that the instrument is appropriate for use in diverse populations. Translation and cultural adaptation involve modifying the instrument to ensure that the language, content, and format are relevant and understandable to individuals from different cultural backgrounds. This process typically involves multiple steps, including forward translation, back translation, cognitive interviewing, and psychometric testing.
4. Detailed Review of Individual Instruments
This section provides a detailed review of each of the seven selected generic HRQOL instruments. The discussion includes an overview of the instrument, its conceptual and measurement model, reliability, validity, respondent and administrative burden, alternative forms, and cultural and language adaptations.
4.1 The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey
The SF-36 is a widely used generic HRQOL instrument developed as a short-form measure of functioning and well-being in the Medical Outcomes Study. It is a multi-purpose health survey that assesses eight health concepts: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality (energy/fatigue), social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. The SF-36 is a valuable tool for assessing HRQOL in diverse populations and settings.
4.1.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of SF-36
The SF-36 measures eight distinct health concepts, which can be summarized into two summary scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). These scores provide a comprehensive overview of physical and mental health status. The SF-36 is based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the multidimensional nature of health, encompassing physical, mental, and social aspects.
4.1.2 Reliability of SF-36
The SF-36 has demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90, indicating good stability over time. Internal consistency reliability, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.1.3 Validity of SF-36
The SF-36 has demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. It has been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The SF-36 can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.1.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of SF-36
The SF-36 takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete, making it relatively easy to administer. It can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil, telephone, and electronic administration. The SF-36 is widely available and has been used in numerous large-scale studies.
4.1.5 Alternative Forms of SF-36
The SF-12 is a shorter version of the SF-36, consisting of 12 items. The SF-12 provides a quick assessment of physical and mental health status and can be useful in situations where time is limited. The SF-12 has been shown to be a valid and reliable alternative to the SF-36.
4.1.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of SF-36
The SF-36 has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
4.2 The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP)
The NHP was developed to reflect lay rather than professional perceptions of health. It is a generic HRQOL instrument that assesses six dimensions of health: physical mobility, pain, sleep, social isolation, emotional reactions, and energy level. The NHP is designed to be easily understood and completed by individuals with varying levels of education.
4.2.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of NHP
The NHP is based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the subjective experience of health. It focuses on how individuals perceive and react to their health status. The NHP assesses a broad range of health dimensions, providing a comprehensive overview of HRQOL.
4.2.2 Reliability of NHP
The NHP has demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90. Internal consistency reliability is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.2.3 Validity of NHP
The NHP has demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. It has been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The NHP can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.2.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of NHP
The NHP takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete, making it relatively easy to administer. It can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil and telephone administration.
4.2.5 Alternative Forms of NHP
There are no widely used alternative forms of the NHP.
4.2.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of NHP
The NHP has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
4.3 The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)
The SIP was constructed as a measure of sickness in relation to its impact on behavior. It is a comprehensive generic HRQOL instrument that assesses the impact of illness on various aspects of daily life, including physical, emotional, and social functioning. The SIP is designed to be sensitive to changes in health status over time.
4.3.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of SIP
The SIP is based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the impact of illness on behavior. It assesses 12 dimensions of health, including ambulation, mobility, body care and movement, social interaction, communication, alertness behavior, emotional behavior, sleep and rest, eating, work, home management, and recreation and pastimes.
4.3.2 Reliability of SIP
The SIP has demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90. Internal consistency reliability is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.3.3 Validity of SIP
The SIP has demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. It has been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The SIP can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.3.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of SIP
The SIP takes approximately 20-30 minutes to complete, making it more burdensome than some other generic HRQOL instruments. It can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil and telephone administration.
4.3.5 Alternative Forms of SIP
There are no widely used alternative forms of the SIP.
4.3.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of SIP
The SIP has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
4.4 The Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project (COOP) Charts
The Dartmouth COOP Charts were designed to be used in everyday clinical practice to provide immediate feedback to clinicians about the health status of their patients. They are a set of simple, easy-to-use charts that assess six dimensions of health: physical function, emotional function, social function, pain, general health, and change in health.
4.4.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of COOP Charts
The COOP Charts are based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of patient-reported outcomes in primary care. They are designed to be easily understood and completed by patients, providing clinicians with valuable information about their patients’ health status.
4.4.2 Reliability of COOP Charts
The COOP Charts have demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90. Internal consistency reliability is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.4.3 Validity of COOP Charts
The COOP Charts have demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. They have been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The COOP Charts can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.4.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of COOP Charts
The COOP Charts take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete, making them very easy to administer. They can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil and electronic administration.
4.4.5 Alternative Forms of COOP Charts
There are no widely used alternative forms of the COOP Charts.
4.4.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of COOP Charts
The COOP Charts have been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
4.5 The Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale
The QWB is a preference-based measure designed to summarize HRQOL in a single number ranging from 0 to 1. It assesses four dimensions of health: mobility, physical activity, social activity, and symptoms and problems. The QWB is used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which are used in cost-effectiveness analyses.
4.5.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of QWB
The QWB is based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of societal preferences in valuing health states. It uses a weighting system to assign values to different health states, based on the preferences of the general population.
4.5.2 Reliability of QWB
The QWB has demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90. Internal consistency reliability is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.5.3 Validity of QWB
The QWB has demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. It has been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The QWB can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.5.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of QWB
The QWB takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete, making it relatively easy to administer. It can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil and telephone administration.
4.5.5 Alternative Forms of QWB
There are no widely used alternative forms of the QWB.
4.5.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of QWB
The QWB has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
4.6 The Health Utilities Index (HUI)
The HUI is a preference-based measure designed to summarize HRQOL in a single number ranging from 0 to 1. It assesses eight dimensions of health: vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, and pain. The HUI is used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which are used in cost-effectiveness analyses.
4.6.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of HUI
The HUI is based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of societal preferences in valuing health states. It uses a weighting system to assign values to different health states, based on the preferences of the general population.
4.6.2 Reliability of HUI
The HUI has demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90. Internal consistency reliability is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.6.3 Validity of HUI
The HUI has demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. It has been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The HUI can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.6.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of HUI
The HUI takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete, making it relatively easy to administer. It can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil and telephone administration.
4.6.5 Alternative Forms of HUI
There are two versions of the HUI: HUI2 and HUI3. HUI3 is the more commonly used version.
4.6.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of HUI
The HUI has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
4.7 The EuroQol Instrument (EQ-5D)
The EQ-5D is a preference-based measure designed to summarize HRQOL in a single number ranging from 0 to 1. It assesses five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. The EQ-5D is used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which are used in cost-effectiveness analyses.
4.7.1 Conceptual and Measurement Model of EQ-5D
The EQ-5D is based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of societal preferences in valuing health states. It uses a weighting system to assign values to different health states, based on the preferences of the general population.
4.7.2 Reliability of EQ-5D
The EQ-5D has demonstrated good reliability in various studies. Test-retest reliability coefficients typically range from 0.70 to 0.90. Internal consistency reliability is also high, with values generally above 0.80 for most scales.
4.7.3 Validity of EQ-5D
The EQ-5D has demonstrated good validity in numerous studies. It has been shown to correlate with other measures of health status, such as clinical assessments and other HRQOL instruments. The EQ-5D can differentiate between groups known to differ in health status, such as individuals with chronic diseases and healthy controls.
4.7.4 Respondent and Administrative Burden of EQ-5D
The EQ-5D takes approximately 5-10 minutes to complete, making it very easy to administer. It can be administered in various formats, including paper-and-pencil and electronic administration.
4.7.5 Alternative Forms of EQ-5D
There are two versions of the EQ-5D: EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. The EQ-5D-5L is the more recent version, with five levels of severity for each dimension.
4.7.6 Cultural and Language Adaptations of EQ-5D
The EQ-5D has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and cultures. These adaptations have undergone rigorous validation to ensure that the instrument is culturally appropriate and maintains its psychometric properties.
5. Comparative Analysis of HRQOL Instruments
The following table provides a comparative analysis of the seven generic HRQOL instruments based on the key characteristics discussed in the previous sections.
| Instrument | Conceptual Model | Reliability | Validity | Respondent Burden | Alternative Forms | Cultural Adaptations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF-36 | Multidimensional health concepts | Good | Good | Low | SF-12 | Extensive |
| NHP | Subjective experience of health | Good | Good | Low | None | Extensive |
| SIP | Impact of illness on behavior | Good | Good | Moderate | None | Extensive |
| COOP Charts | Patient-reported outcomes in primary care | Good | Good | Very Low | None | Extensive |
| QWB | Societal preferences in valuing health states | Good | Good | Low | None | Extensive |
| HUI | Societal preferences in valuing health states | Good | Good | Low | HUI2, HUI3 | Extensive |
| EQ-5D | Societal preferences in valuing health states | Good | Good | Very Low | EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L | Extensive |
This table summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of each instrument, providing a useful guide for selecting the most appropriate tool for a given study or clinical setting.
6. Factors Influencing Instrument Selection
The selection of an HRQOL instrument depends on a variety of factors, including:
- The purpose of the measurement
- The characteristics of the population (e.g., age, health status, language/culture)
- The environment in which the measurement is undertaken (e.g., clinical trial, routine physician visit)
It’s also crucial to consider whether you need a profile of scores or a single summary score. Preference-based measures like the QWB, HUI, and EQ-5D are useful for cost-effectiveness analyses, while profile measures like the SF-36 and NHP provide a more detailed picture of HRQOL. COMPARE.EDU.VN can assist you in weighing these factors to make an informed decision.
6.1 Purpose of Measurement
The primary purpose of the HRQOL assessment should guide the selection of the instrument. If the goal is to evaluate the impact of a specific intervention, a disease-specific instrument may be more appropriate. However, if the goal is to compare HRQOL across different populations or interventions, a generic instrument is preferred.
6.2 Population Characteristics
The characteristics of the target population should also be considered. For example, instruments with simpler language and formats may be more suitable for older adults or individuals with limited education. Cultural and language adaptations are essential for ensuring that the instrument is appropriate for use in diverse populations.
6.3 Measurement Environment
The environment in which the measurement is undertaken can also influence instrument selection. In busy clinical settings, shorter instruments with lower respondent burden are often preferred. In research studies, more comprehensive instruments may be used to capture a more detailed picture of HRQOL.
7. The Role of COMPARE.EDU.VN in HRQOL Instrument Selection
COMPARE.EDU.VN plays a crucial role in helping researchers and practitioners select the most appropriate HRQOL instruments for their needs. Our website provides comprehensive comparisons of various instruments, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and key characteristics. We offer detailed information on the conceptual and measurement models, reliability, validity, respondent and administrative burden, alternative forms, and cultural and language adaptations of each instrument.
7.1 Comprehensive Comparisons
COMPARE.EDU.VN offers side-by-side comparisons of HRQOL instruments, allowing users to easily evaluate their key characteristics and make informed decisions. Our comparisons include detailed information on the conceptual and measurement models, reliability, validity, respondent and administrative burden, alternative forms, and cultural and language adaptations of each instrument.
7.2 Expert Reviews
Our website features expert reviews of HRQOL instruments, providing valuable insights and guidance for users. Our reviews are written by experienced researchers and practitioners who have extensive knowledge of HRQOL assessment. They offer critical evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of each instrument, helping users to identify the most appropriate tool for their needs.
7.3 User Feedback
COMPARE.EDU.VN also incorporates user feedback, allowing individuals who have used HRQOL instruments to share their experiences and insights. This feedback can be invaluable for others who are considering using the same instruments.
8. Future Directions in HRQOL Assessment
The field of HRQOL assessment is constantly evolving, with new instruments and methods being developed. Some of the key trends and future directions in this field include:
- Development of more sensitive and responsive instruments
- Use of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to reduce respondent burden
- Integration of HRQOL assessment into routine clinical practice
- Development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for specific conditions
- Use of mobile technology to collect HRQOL data
These developments are aimed at improving the accuracy, efficiency, and relevance of HRQOL assessment.
8.1 Development of More Sensitive and Responsive Instruments
Researchers are continually working to develop HRQOL instruments that are more sensitive to changes in health status and more responsive to the effects of interventions. This involves refining existing instruments and developing new instruments that capture the nuances of HRQOL more effectively.
8.2 Use of Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT)
Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) is a method of administering HRQOL instruments that uses algorithms to select questions based on the respondent’s previous answers. This reduces the number of questions needed to obtain accurate data, thereby reducing respondent burden.
8.3 Integration of HRQOL Assessment into Routine Clinical Practice
There is a growing movement to integrate HRQOL assessment into routine clinical practice. This involves using HRQOL instruments to monitor patients’ health status, identify unmet needs, and tailor interventions to improve overall quality of life.
8.4 Development of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Specific Conditions
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are instruments that capture patients’ perspectives on their health status, symptoms, and functioning. There is a growing emphasis on developing PROMs for specific conditions, to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of diseases and treatments on patients’ lives.
8.5 Use of Mobile Technology to Collect HRQOL Data
Mobile technology, such as smartphones and tablets, is increasingly being used to collect HRQOL data. This offers several advantages, including increased convenience for respondents, reduced administrative burden, and the ability to collect data in real-time.
9. Conclusion
Selecting the right generic quality of life instrument is crucial for accurate and meaningful HRQOL assessment. This review has provided a detailed comparison of seven commonly used instruments, highlighting their key characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. By considering the purpose of the measurement, the characteristics of the population, and the environment in which the measurement is undertaken, researchers and practitioners can make informed decisions about which instrument is most appropriate for their needs. Remember, the information age offers many choices, but COMPARE.EDU.VN can make those choices easier.
For further assistance in comparing and selecting HRQOL instruments, visit compare.edu.vn at 333 Comparison Plaza, Choice City, CA 90210, United States or contact us via Whatsapp at +1 (626) 555-9090. Our comprehensive comparisons and expert reviews will help you make the best decision for your specific needs.
10. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
10.1 What is a generic quality of life instrument?
A generic quality of life instrument is a tool designed to assess health-related quality of life across a wide range of populations and conditions, providing a broad overview of health status.
10.2 Why is it important to assess health-related quality of life?
Assessing health-related quality of life helps understand the impact of diseases and treatments on individuals’ overall well-being, capturing physical, emotional, social, and functional aspects of life.
10.3 What are the key characteristics to consider when selecting an HRQOL instrument?
Key characteristics include the conceptual and measurement model, reliability, validity, respondent and administrative burden, alternative forms, and cultural and language adaptations.
10.4 What is the SF-36?
The SF-36 is a widely used generic HRQOL instrument that assesses eight health concepts: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health.
10.5 What is the EQ-5D?
The EQ-5D is a preference-based measure designed to summarize HRQOL in a single number, assessing five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.
10.6 What is the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP)?
The NHP is a generic HRQOL instrument developed to reflect lay perceptions of health, assessing dimensions like physical mobility, pain, sleep, social isolation, emotional reactions, and energy level.
10.7 What is the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)?
The SIP is a comprehensive generic HRQOL instrument assessing the impact of illness on various aspects of daily life, including physical, emotional, and social functioning.
10.8 What are the Dartmouth COOP Charts?
The Dartmouth COOP Charts are simple, easy-to-use charts designed for everyday clinical practice, assessing dimensions like physical, emotional, and social function, pain, general health, and change in health.
10.9 What is the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale?
The QWB is a preference-based measure summarizing HRQOL in a single number, assessing mobility, physical activity, social activity, and symptoms and problems, used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
10.10 What is the Health Utilities Index (HUI)?
The HUI is a preference-based measure summarizing HRQOL in a single number, assessing vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, and pain, used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
