ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2015
Evaluation of smoking-specific and generic quality of life measures in current and former smokers in Germany and the United States.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using augmented reality to deliver cue exposure treatment for smoking cessation: App usability findings and protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- International Expert Consensus on Relevant Health and Functioning Concepts to Assess in Users of Tobacco and Nicotine Products: Delphi Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- The effects of electronic cigarette use patterns on health-related symptom burden and quality of life: analysis of US prospective longitudinal cohort study data.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Impact of tobacco and/or nicotine products on health and functioning: a scoping review and findings from the preparatory phase of the development of a new self-report measure.Harm reduction journal · 2021Article
- Assisted reproductive technology treatments and quality of life: a longitudinal study among subfertile women and men.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2017Article
- Standardizing disease-specific quality of life measures across multiple chronic conditions: development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®).Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of a New German Translated Tobacco Quality of Life Impact Tool to Discriminate Between Healthy Current and Former Smokers and to Explore the Effect of Switching Smokers to a Reduced Toxicant Prototype Cigarette.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2015Article
- The Validity of Disease-specific Quality of Life Attributions Among Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions.International journal of statistics in medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth-related quality of life (QOL) surveys include generic measures that enable comparisons across conditions and measures that focus more specifically on one disease or condition. We evaluated the psychometric properties of German- and English-language versions of survey scales representing both types of measures in samples of current and former smokers.
methodsTQOLIT(™)v1 integrates new measures of smoking-specific symptoms and QOL impact attributed to smoking with generic SF-36 Health Survey measures. For purposes of evaluation, cross-sectional data were analyzed for two independent samples. Disease-free (otherwise healthy) adults ages 23-55 used a tablet to complete surveys in a clinical trial in Germany (125 current and 54 former smokers). Online general population surveys were completed in the US by otherwise healthy current and former smokers (N = 149 and 110, respectively). Evaluations included psychometric tests of assumptions underlying scale construction and scoring, score distributions, and reliability. Tests of validity included cross-sectional correlations and analyses of variance based on a conceptual framework and hypotheses for groups differing in self-reported smoking behavior (current versus former smoker, cigarettes per day (CPD)) and severity of smoking symptoms in both samples and, in the German trial only, clinical parameters of biomarkers of exposure.
resultsTests of scaling assumptions and internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.71-0.79) of the smoking-specific measures were satisfactory, although ceiling effects attenuated correlations for former smokers in both samples. Correlational evidence supporting validity of smoking-specific symptom and impact measures included their substantial inter-correlation and higher correlations (than generic measures) with smoking behavior (favoring former over current groups) and CPD in both samples. In the German trial, both smoking-specific measures correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with all four biomarkers. QOL impact attributed to smoking correlated with the SF-36 mental but not physical summary measures in both samples.
conclusionsGerman- and English-language TQOLITv1 surveys have comparable and satisfactory psychometric properties. Cross-sectional tests, including correlations with four biomarkers, support the validity of the new smoking-specific measures for use in studies of otherwise healthy smokers. Smoking-specific measures consistently performed better than generic QOL measures in all tests of validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.