Skip to main content
Log in

Integrating health profile with survival for quality of life assessment

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In cohort studies or clinical trials, measurements of quality of life (QoL) were averaged across available individuals for each group at given points in time to produce single measures for comparisons. However, estimates of these single measures may be severely biased if substantial mortality occurs over time. The objective of this study is to develop a method that integrates QoL measurement and survival for long-term evaluation of health services. We defined a mean QoL score function over time for an index population as the average QoL score of all individuals both alive and dead at each time point in the population. While a living subject's QoL can be assessed by asking one's subjective preference, the score of a decedent can be assigned a fixed value depending on the specific facet on health profile. The mean QoL score function over time is reduced to a single measure of expected cumulative QoL score, which is the area under the curve of mean QoL score function over a given time interval and can be estimated by taking a random sample from a cross-sectional survey. For the QoL score function to be extrapolated to life-long, it requires the assumption that the disease causes premature death or a long-term moderate impairment of QoL. We provided methods and computer programs for estimating mean QoL score functions and the reduced single measures for use in comparisons. A cohort of 779 breast cancer patients from Chiangmai, Thailand were followed for 12 years to demonstrate the proposed methods. The data included the 12-year complete survival records and QoL scores on 233 patients collected from a cross-sectional survey using WHOQOL questionnaire and standard gamble method. The expected cumulative QoL scores using utility and psychometric scales were compared among patients in four groups of clinical stages in this cohort for time from onset up to 12 years and life-long. We conclude that such an integration of QoL measurement with survival can be useful for the evaluation of health service and clinical decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berzon RA. Understanding and using health-related quality of life instruments within clinical research studies. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998, 3-15.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 1403-1409.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality of life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38(6): 583-637.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bowing A. Measuring Disease. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Patrick DL, Ericson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kaplan RM. Profile versus utility based measures of outcome for clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; 69-90.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fairclough D. Methods of analysis for longitudinal studies of health-related quality of life. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; 227-247.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hays RD, Alonso J, Coons SJ. Possibilities summarizing health-related quality of life when using a profile instrument. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; 143-153.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hwang JS, Tsauo JY, Wang JD. Estimation of expected quality-adjusted survival by cross-sectional survey. Stat Med 1996; 15: 93-102.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hwang JS, Wang JD. Monte Carlo estimation of extrapolation of quality-adjusted survival for follow-up studies. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1627-1640.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chantawong C. Estimation of quality-adjusted survival of breast cancer patients in Chiangmai, Thailand. (Ph.D. dissertation) Bangkok. Thailand: Mahidol University Faculty of Public Health, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. MC-QAS software for estimating expected quality-adjusted survival time adjusted for psychometric scores and utilities for health related quality of life assessment. Available from URL: http://www.stat.sinica.edu.tw/jshwang.

  17. Martin NC, Sriskho S, eds. Statistical Report of the Registry Unit, Chiangmai. Thailand: Faculty of Medicine, Chiangmai University, 1993, 16 p.

    Google Scholar 

  18. The WHOQOL Group: Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998; 28: 551-558.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cox DR, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher AE, Gore SM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Jones DR. Quality-of-life assessment: Can we keep it simple? J R Stat Soc A 1992; 155: 353-393.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schwartz CE, Laitin EA. Using decision theory in clinical research: Applications of quality-adjusted life-years. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; 119-141.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wang JD. Basic Principles and Practical Application of Epidemiological Research. Singapore: World Scientific, 2002; 161-195.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hwang, JS., Wang, JD. Integrating health profile with survival for quality of life assessment. Qual Life Res 13, 1–10 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000015299.45623.38

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000015299.45623.38

Navigation