Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores

Marlene H. Frost, Amy E. Bonomi, Carol Estwing Ferrans, Gilbert Y. Wong, Ron D. Hays, Neil Aaronson, Ivan Barofsky, Rick Berzon, Monika Bullinger, Joseph C. Cappelleri, David Cella, Diane L. Fairclough, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick Marquis, Carol Moinpour, Tim Moynihan, Geoff Norman, David Osoba, Donald Patrick, Dennis RevickiTeresa Rummans, Charles Scott, Jeff A Sloan, Miriam Sprangers, Tara Symonds, Claudette Varricchio, Albert Wu, Kathleen Wyrwich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

68 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite the success of screening and treatment of major cancers in the United States, cancer remains a chronic condition dominated by symptoms and treatment-related adverse effects. Because of these often taxing symptoms and adverse effects, numerous studies have been conducted to document the effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the quality of life (QOL) of patients. But there has been limited investigation of the clinical significance of QOL scores. This article examines the clinical significance of QOL scores from 3 key perspectives: patients, clinicians, and the general population. The patient's perspective includes an evaluation of the size of difference in scores that individual patients can detect and regard as important. The clinician perspective relies on whether the clinician believes the patient's condition has stayed the same vs whether changes have occurred (decline or improvement). The population perspective represents a democratic process in which the input or votes of a community of people are used to determine if health state A is clinically significantly different from health state B. While many clinicians and researchers advocate for QOL to be defined from the patient's perspective, the reality is that QOL is often defined by clinicians in terms of observable events. Even when measures are used in which the patient identifies how his or her life has been affected, it is often the clinician who interprets the clinical importance of this information. The clinician's perspective has value in framing an experience within the context of what is usual for a group of individuals, and the population perspective provides inputs as to how society may use limited resources. However, we conclude that a more prominent role for the patient's QOL perspective is needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)488-494
Number of pages7
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume77
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Quality of Life
Population
Neoplasms
Health
Population Groups
Therapeutics
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Frost, M. H., Bonomi, A. E., Ferrans, C. E., Wong, G. Y., Hays, R. D., Aaronson, N., ... Wyrwich, K. (2002). Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 488-494.

Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. / Frost, Marlene H.; Bonomi, Amy E.; Ferrans, Carol Estwing; Wong, Gilbert Y.; Hays, Ron D.; Aaronson, Neil; Barofsky, Ivan; Berzon, Rick; Bullinger, Monika; Cappelleri, Joseph C.; Cella, David; Fairclough, Diane L.; Guyatt, Gordon; Marquis, Patrick; Moinpour, Carol; Moynihan, Tim; Norman, Geoff; Osoba, David; Patrick, Donald; Revicki, Dennis; Rummans, Teresa; Scott, Charles; Sloan, Jeff A; Sprangers, Miriam; Symonds, Tara; Varricchio, Claudette; Wu, Albert; Wyrwich, Kathleen.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 77, No. 5, 2002, p. 488-494.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Frost, MH, Bonomi, AE, Ferrans, CE, Wong, GY, Hays, RD, Aaronson, N, Barofsky, I, Berzon, R, Bullinger, M, Cappelleri, JC, Cella, D, Fairclough, DL, Guyatt, G, Marquis, P, Moinpour, C, Moynihan, T, Norman, G, Osoba, D, Patrick, D, Revicki, D, Rummans, T, Scott, C, Sloan, JA, Sprangers, M, Symonds, T, Varricchio, C, Wu, A & Wyrwich, K 2002, 'Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 488-494.
Frost MH, Bonomi AE, Ferrans CE, Wong GY, Hays RD, Aaronson N et al. Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77(5):488-494.
Frost, Marlene H. ; Bonomi, Amy E. ; Ferrans, Carol Estwing ; Wong, Gilbert Y. ; Hays, Ron D. ; Aaronson, Neil ; Barofsky, Ivan ; Berzon, Rick ; Bullinger, Monika ; Cappelleri, Joseph C. ; Cella, David ; Fairclough, Diane L. ; Guyatt, Gordon ; Marquis, Patrick ; Moinpour, Carol ; Moynihan, Tim ; Norman, Geoff ; Osoba, David ; Patrick, Donald ; Revicki, Dennis ; Rummans, Teresa ; Scott, Charles ; Sloan, Jeff A ; Sprangers, Miriam ; Symonds, Tara ; Varricchio, Claudette ; Wu, Albert ; Wyrwich, Kathleen. / Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002 ; Vol. 77, No. 5. pp. 488-494.
@article{e9597b84b18d42ff8cfabfaae65fea39,
title = "Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores",
abstract = "Despite the success of screening and treatment of major cancers in the United States, cancer remains a chronic condition dominated by symptoms and treatment-related adverse effects. Because of these often taxing symptoms and adverse effects, numerous studies have been conducted to document the effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the quality of life (QOL) of patients. But there has been limited investigation of the clinical significance of QOL scores. This article examines the clinical significance of QOL scores from 3 key perspectives: patients, clinicians, and the general population. The patient's perspective includes an evaluation of the size of difference in scores that individual patients can detect and regard as important. The clinician perspective relies on whether the clinician believes the patient's condition has stayed the same vs whether changes have occurred (decline or improvement). The population perspective represents a democratic process in which the input or votes of a community of people are used to determine if health state A is clinically significantly different from health state B. While many clinicians and researchers advocate for QOL to be defined from the patient's perspective, the reality is that QOL is often defined by clinicians in terms of observable events. Even when measures are used in which the patient identifies how his or her life has been affected, it is often the clinician who interprets the clinical importance of this information. The clinician's perspective has value in framing an experience within the context of what is usual for a group of individuals, and the population perspective provides inputs as to how society may use limited resources. However, we conclude that a more prominent role for the patient's QOL perspective is needed.",
author = "Frost, {Marlene H.} and Bonomi, {Amy E.} and Ferrans, {Carol Estwing} and Wong, {Gilbert Y.} and Hays, {Ron D.} and Neil Aaronson and Ivan Barofsky and Rick Berzon and Monika Bullinger and Cappelleri, {Joseph C.} and David Cella and Fairclough, {Diane L.} and Gordon Guyatt and Patrick Marquis and Carol Moinpour and Tim Moynihan and Geoff Norman and David Osoba and Donald Patrick and Dennis Revicki and Teresa Rummans and Charles Scott and Sloan, {Jeff A} and Miriam Sprangers and Tara Symonds and Claudette Varricchio and Albert Wu and Kathleen Wyrwich",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "488--494",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores

AU - Frost, Marlene H.

AU - Bonomi, Amy E.

AU - Ferrans, Carol Estwing

AU - Wong, Gilbert Y.

AU - Hays, Ron D.

AU - Aaronson, Neil

AU - Barofsky, Ivan

AU - Berzon, Rick

AU - Bullinger, Monika

AU - Cappelleri, Joseph C.

AU - Cella, David

AU - Fairclough, Diane L.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon

AU - Marquis, Patrick

AU - Moinpour, Carol

AU - Moynihan, Tim

AU - Norman, Geoff

AU - Osoba, David

AU - Patrick, Donald

AU - Revicki, Dennis

AU - Rummans, Teresa

AU - Scott, Charles

AU - Sloan, Jeff A

AU - Sprangers, Miriam

AU - Symonds, Tara

AU - Varricchio, Claudette

AU - Wu, Albert

AU - Wyrwich, Kathleen

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Despite the success of screening and treatment of major cancers in the United States, cancer remains a chronic condition dominated by symptoms and treatment-related adverse effects. Because of these often taxing symptoms and adverse effects, numerous studies have been conducted to document the effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the quality of life (QOL) of patients. But there has been limited investigation of the clinical significance of QOL scores. This article examines the clinical significance of QOL scores from 3 key perspectives: patients, clinicians, and the general population. The patient's perspective includes an evaluation of the size of difference in scores that individual patients can detect and regard as important. The clinician perspective relies on whether the clinician believes the patient's condition has stayed the same vs whether changes have occurred (decline or improvement). The population perspective represents a democratic process in which the input or votes of a community of people are used to determine if health state A is clinically significantly different from health state B. While many clinicians and researchers advocate for QOL to be defined from the patient's perspective, the reality is that QOL is often defined by clinicians in terms of observable events. Even when measures are used in which the patient identifies how his or her life has been affected, it is often the clinician who interprets the clinical importance of this information. The clinician's perspective has value in framing an experience within the context of what is usual for a group of individuals, and the population perspective provides inputs as to how society may use limited resources. However, we conclude that a more prominent role for the patient's QOL perspective is needed.

AB - Despite the success of screening and treatment of major cancers in the United States, cancer remains a chronic condition dominated by symptoms and treatment-related adverse effects. Because of these often taxing symptoms and adverse effects, numerous studies have been conducted to document the effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the quality of life (QOL) of patients. But there has been limited investigation of the clinical significance of QOL scores. This article examines the clinical significance of QOL scores from 3 key perspectives: patients, clinicians, and the general population. The patient's perspective includes an evaluation of the size of difference in scores that individual patients can detect and regard as important. The clinician perspective relies on whether the clinician believes the patient's condition has stayed the same vs whether changes have occurred (decline or improvement). The population perspective represents a democratic process in which the input or votes of a community of people are used to determine if health state A is clinically significantly different from health state B. While many clinicians and researchers advocate for QOL to be defined from the patient's perspective, the reality is that QOL is often defined by clinicians in terms of observable events. Even when measures are used in which the patient identifies how his or her life has been affected, it is often the clinician who interprets the clinical importance of this information. The clinician's perspective has value in framing an experience within the context of what is usual for a group of individuals, and the population perspective provides inputs as to how society may use limited resources. However, we conclude that a more prominent role for the patient's QOL perspective is needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036237835&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036237835&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12004999

AN - SCOPUS:0036237835

VL - 77

SP - 488

EP - 494

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 5

ER -