Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26370098›Full record

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.

Alison M Llewellyn, Suzanne M Skevington

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2021
    Article
  3. 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 · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alison M LlewellynFaculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Centre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Glenside Campus, Blackberry Hill, Bristol, BS16 1DD, UK. Alison.Llewellyn@uwe.ac.uk.
Suzanne M SkevingtonFaculty of Medicine and Human Sciences, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. suzanne.skevington@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeSelf CareYoung AdultCommunityFeedbackHealthcareImportanceIndividualQuality of life

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.