Download PDF
Gesundheitswesen 2013; 75(03): 166-175
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1332968
Fort- und Weiterbildung
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Die Erfassung gesundheitsbezogener Lebensqualität bei Erwachsenen

The Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Adults
S. Nolte
1   Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Psychosomatik, Charité, Berlin
2   Population Health Strategic Research Centre, Deakin University, Burwood, Australien
,
M. Rose
1   Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Psychosomatik, Charité, Berlin
3   University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 March 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints
Kernaussagen

  • Gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität gilt in vielen Bereichen des Gesundheitswesens als wichtiger Endpunkt in der Beurteilung von klinischen Interventionen.

  • Die wichtigsten Konstrukte der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität sind physische Gesundheit, psychisches Wohlbefinden, Alltagsfunktionsfähigkeit sowie soziale Integration.

  • Die 4 konzeptionellen Ansätze der Operationalisierung von Lebensqualität sind die

    1. globale,

    2. gesundheits- und

    3. krankheitsbezogene Lebensqualität sowie

    4. Utility-Messungen

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Verfahrensordnung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses. (zuletzt geändert am 06.12.2012). Im Internet: http://www.g-ba.de/institution/auftrag/Verfahrensordnung/ (Stand: 06.02.2013)
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims (Dezember 2009). Im Internet: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf (Stand: 06.02.2013)
    Google Scholar
  • 3 European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP): Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products (27.07.2005). Im Internet: http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf (Stand: 06.02.2013)
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Bottomley A, Jones D, Claassens L. Patient-reported outcomes: Assessment and current perspectives of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration and the reflection paper of the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 347-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Saxena S, Orley J. on behalf of the WHOQOL Group. Quality of life assessment: The World Health Organization perspective. Eur Psychiatry 1997; 12: 263s-266s
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McPhail S, Beller E, Haines T. Two perspectives of proxy reporting of health-related quality of life using the Euroqol-5D, an investigation of agreement. Med Care 2008; 46: 1140-1148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Crowne DP, Marlowe D. The approval motive: studies in evaluative dependence. New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons; 1964
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507-1515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nolte S, Elsworth GR, Newman S et al. Measurement issues in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management programs. Qual Life Res 2012; DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0317-1.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rose M. Lebensqualität bei chronischen Erkrankungen. In: Janssen PL, Joraschky P, Tress W, Hrsg. Leitfaden Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie. 2.. überarb. u. erw. Aufl. Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2011: 227-234
    Google Scholar
  • 11 World Health Organization. Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 153-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gill T, Feinstein A. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 619-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ibrahim S, Burant C, Siminoff L et al. Self-assessed global quality of life: a comparison between African-American and white older patients with arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 512-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Howard GS, Dailey PR. Response-shift bias: a source of contamination of self-report measures. J Appl Psychol 1979; 64: 144-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sprangers MAG. Response-shift bias in program evaluation. Impact Assessment Bulletin 1989; 7: 153-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bullinger M, Ravens-Sieberer U, Siegrist J. Gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität in der Medizin – eine Einführung. In: Bullinger M, Ravens-Sieberer U, Siegrist J, Hrsg. Lebensqualitätsforschung aus medizinpsychologischer und -soziologischer Perspektive. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2000: 11-24
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Revicki D. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992; 30: MS274-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Krabbe P, Weijnen T. Guidelines for analysing and reporting EQ-5D outcomes. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, eds. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003: 7-19
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J et al. Double jeopardy, the equal value of lives and the veil of ignorance: a rejoinder to Harris. J Med Ethics 1996; 22: 204-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Arnesen T, Nord E. The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ 1999; 319: 1423-1425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Billingham LJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 MAPI Research Trust. PROQOLID – Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (2001–2013). Im Internet: http://www.proqolid.org/ (Stand: 06.02.2013)
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 193-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bortz J, Schuster C. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. 7.. vollständig überarb. u. erw. Aufl. Berlin: Springer-Medizin-Verlag; 2010
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hair JF, Black WC, Rabin BJ et al. Multivariate data analysis. 6.. Aufl. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 28 DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3.. Aufl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Albrecht G, Devlieger P. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 977-988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schwartz C, Feinberg R, Jilinskaia E et al. An evaluation of a psychosocial intervention for survivors of childhood cancer: paradoxical effects of response shift over time. Psycho-Oncology 1999; 8: 344-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar