ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2016
Evaluating a new methodology for providing individualized feedback in healthcare on quality of life and its importance, using the WHOQOL-BREF in a community population.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-AGE Scale in Singapore.European journal of ageing · 2024Article
- Enhancing the multi-dimensional assessment of quality of life: introducing the WHOQOL-Combi.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Does quality of life feedback promote seeking help for undiagnosed cancer?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- How will the sustainable development goals deliver changes in well-being? A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether WHOQOL-BREF scores respond to change.BMJ global health · 2018Article
- "Am I normal?" The Wishes of Patients With Lymphoma to Compare Their Patient-Reported Outcomes With Those of Their Peers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Electronic Quality of Life Assessment Using Computer-Adaptive Testing.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- Introduction to special section on patient-reported outcomes in nonstandard settings.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted an evaluation to find out how a novel quality of life (QoL) intervention containing guided individualized feedback was appraised. The importance of QoL was matched with QoL assessment for each subjective dimension, using graphical feedback. We examined whether this information was acceptable, feasible and valued beyond the clinical context, among the community.
methodsUsing a mixed-methods cross-sectional design, the intervention was piloted with 129 participants from communities and registered in primary care. WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL Importance scores were graphically matched by dimension. Results were inspected and interpreted with directed guidance to identify good and poor QoL. We report the post-intervention evaluation of feedback, including qualitative themes. Follow-up interviews among those expecting feedback to be helpful explored potential self-management and healthcare uses.
resultsAfter feedback, 65 % reported changes in thoughts and perceptions of QoL, often describing insights as self-affirming. Goals or expectations changed for 34 %, and motivation to change was reported. Over 50 % evaluated the feedback as helpful in the short term or for the future. Follow-up interviews endorsed the value of the feedback and its usefulness in sharing with a healthcare professional (92 %), suggesting it would facilitate professionals' understandings of patients and enable health advice to be targeted.
conclusionsThe benefits of using this novel feedback can be extended to the general population, as directed guidance aids interpretation, thereby saving health service costs. This complex pilot intervention needs testing in a blinded fully randomized controlled trial. Beyond independent self-management, graphs could be used during clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26370098What 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.