Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF)

The increasing recognition of the patient perspective and, more specifically, functioning and health, has led to an impressive effort in research to develop concepts and instruments to measure them. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) and the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) represent two different perspectives from which to look at functioning and health. Therefore, it is expected that both will often be used concurrently in clinical practice, research and health reporting. The objective of our study was to examine the relationship between six HRQOL instruments (the SF-36, the NHP, the QL-I, the WHOQOL-BREF, the WHODASII and the EQ-5D) and the ICF. All six HRQOL instruments were linked to the ICF separately by two trained health professionals according to ten linking rules developed specifically for this purpose. The degree of agreement between health professionals was calculated by means of the kappa statistic. Bootstrapped confidence intervals were calculated. In the 148 items of the 6 instruments a total of 226 concepts were identified and linked to the ICF. The estimated kappa coefficients range between 0.82 and 0.98. The concepts contained in the items of the HRQOL instruments were linked to 91 different ICF categories, 17 categories of the component body functions, 60 categories of the component activities and participation, and 14 categories of the component environmental factors. Twelve concepts could not be linked to the ICF at all. In the component body functions, only emotional functions are covered by all examined instruments. In the component activities and participation, all instruments cover aspects of work, but the half of them scarcely cover aspects of mobility. Only four of the six instruments address environmental factors. The ICF proved highly useful for the comparison of HRQOL instruments. The comparison of selected HRQOL instruments may provide clinicians and researchers with new insights when selecting health-status measures for clinical studies.

[1]  W. Yater,et al.  COLD ALLERGY: REPORT OF AN UNUSUAL CASE , 1941 .

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[3]  A. Dobson,et al.  Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. , 1981, Journal of chronic diseases.

[4]  S P McKenna,et al.  Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. , 1985, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[5]  A. Williams.  EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[6]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[7]  B. Ford.  International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps , 1984, Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire.

[8]  W. Kuyken,et al.  Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives , 1994, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[9]  R. Kessler,et al.  Measuring the effects of medical interventions. , 1995, Medical care.

[10]  H. Dickson.  Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. , 1995, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[11]  R. Brooks.  EuroQol: the current state of play. , 1996, Health policy.

[12]  C. McHorney,et al.  Generic Health Measurement: Past Accomplishments and a Measurement Paradigm for the 21st Century , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  R. Vierkant.  Macro for Calculating Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals About a Kappa Coefficient , 1997 .

[14]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[15]  M. Waltz,et al.  The social environment and health in rheumatoid arthritis: marital quality predicts individual variability in pain severity. , 1998, Arthritis care and research : the official journal of the Arthritis Health Professions Association.

[16]  M. T. J. Buñuales,et al.  La clasificación internacional del funcionamiento de la discapacidad y de la salud (CIF) 2001 , 2002 .

[17]  T. Bedirhan Üstün,et al.  Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[18]  M. Akai,et al.  Current status of rehabilitation medicine in Asia: a report from New Millennium Asian Symposium on Rehabilitation Medicine. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[19]  Thomas Ewert,et al.  Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[20]  P. Doyle.  Measuring health outcomes in stroke survivors. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[21]  A. Cieza,et al.  Linking osteoarthritis-specific health-status measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). , 2003, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[22]  E. Taal,et al.  Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  Life satisfaction related to work re-entry after brain injury: a longitudinal study , 2003, Brain injury.

[24]  Thomas Ewert,et al.  RETRACTED: Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[25]  Susanne Iwarsson,et al.  Indicators for return to work after stroke and the importance of work for subjective well-being and life satisfaction. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[26]  R. Lund,et al.  Social relations as determinant of onset of disability in aging. , 2004, Archives of gerontology and geriatrics.

[27]  C. Shields,et al.  Social support, depression, and functional disability in older adult primary-care patients. , 2004, The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

[28]  G. Chard.  International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health , 2004 .