Quality of life assessments and levels of decision making: differentiating objectives
- 1 August 1993
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Quality of Life Research
- Vol. 2 (4) , 297-303
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00434801
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine uses of quality of life (QOL) measurements at different levels of decision making within the health care system, ranging from the micro (clinical) level, through the meso (agency, institutional or regional) level to the macro and meta (governmental) levels. We use individualized, group and population-based QOL and preference assessments as illustrative examples of ways in which QOL information and decision making level interact. We conclude that the meso and macro levels pose particularly challenging problems, and suggest that, if the primary emphasis is placed on applications of QOL assessments at the micro (clinical) level of decision making, a research agenda that is much too limited may be adopted.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Part IVJournal of Medical Ethics, 1992
- Oregon Becomes a Test Case for Health Care ReformScience, 1992
- The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)Medical Care, 1992
- Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacementThe Lancet, 1992
- Assessing the quality of life of the individual: the SEIQoL with a healthy and a gastroenterology unit populationPsychological Medicine, 1991
- Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methodsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1989
- Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1989
- Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of lifeJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987
- Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: Influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferencesJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987
- Speech and SurvivalNew England Journal of Medicine, 1981