ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Studying different variations of ranking method to explore health related quality of life dimensions prioritization.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore similarities and differences in perceptions of quality of life (QoL) outcome, among different groups of populations, including patients, informal carers and the healthy general publics.
methodsThis study used Q-methodology, which combined both qualitative and quantitative components, to investigate the subjective constructions of QoL across the groups. We developed a list of 35 Q-sample items and collected a total of 151 Q-sort data for use in the standard by-person factor analytic procedure designed for Q-methodology. We also conducted post-sort interviews and obtained qualitative information about why the participants ranked the statements in certain ways.
resultsWe were able to identify four distinct viewpoints: Factor 1: Eat, sleep and other basic needs; Factor 2: Positive relationships, belongings and well-being; Factor 3: My own physical and mental health first; Factor 4: Physical health is the foundation of well-being. While Factor 4 was equally valued across all three categories of participants, Factor 2, which places a high value on positive relationships, was predominantly represented by carers. In contrast, patients tended to emphasise Factor 3, which focuses on individual feelings-particularly emotional and physical distress. Items related to pain, discomfort, and sleep were consistently identified as the most important across all four identified views.
conclusionsThis study presents the similarities and differences of the subjective constructions of QoL across patients, carers and the healthy general publics. It implies the variances of preferences in evaluating QoL, and such variances can consequently affect the measurement and evaluation of QoL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40833673What 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.