Skip to main content
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • Blog
  • Newsroom
  • Find It Fast
  • Help Center
  • Subscribe
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

PCORI

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Search form

  • About Us
    Close mega-menu

    About Us

    • Our Programs
    • Governance
    • Financials and Reports
    • Procurement Opportunities
    • Our Staff
    • Our Vision & Mission
    • Contact Us

    Fact Sheets: Learn More About PCORI

    Download fact sheets about out work, the research we fund, and our programs and initiatives.

    Find It Fast

    Browse through an alphabetical list of frequently accessed and searched terms for information and resources.

    Subscribe to PCORI Email Alerts

    Sign up for weekly emails to stay current on the latest results of our funded projects, and more.

  • Research & Results
    Close mega-menu

    Research & Results

    • Explore Our Portfolio
    • Research Fundamentals
    • Research Results Highlights
    • Putting Evidence to Work
    • Peer Review
    • Evidence Synthesis
    • About Our Research

    Evidence Updates from PCORI-Funded Studies

    These updates capture highlights of findings from systematic reviews and our funded research studies.

    Journal Articles About Our Funded Research

    Browse through a collection of journal publications that provides insights into PCORI-funded work.

    Explore Our Portfolio of Funded Projects

    Find out about projects based on the health conditions they focus on, the state they are in, and if they have results.

  • Topics
    Close mega-menu

    Topics

    • Addressing Disparities
    • Arthritis
    • Asthma
    • Cancer
    • Cardiovascular Disease
    • Children's Health
    • Community Health Workers
    • COVID-19
    • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment
    • Diabetes
    • Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities
    • Kidney Disease
    • Maternal Morbidity and Mortality
    • Medicaid
    • Men's Health
    • Mental and Behavioral Health
    • Minority Mental Health
    • Multiple Chronic Conditions
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Obesity
    • Older Adults' Health
    • Pain Care and Opioids
    • Rare Diseases
    • Rural Health
    • Shared Decision Making
    • Telehealth
    • Transitional Care
    • Veterans Health
    • Women's Health

    Featured Topic: Women's Health

    Learn more about the projects we support on conditions that specifically or more often affect women.

  • Engagement
    Close mega-menu

    Engagement

    • The Value of Engagement
    • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
    • Influencing the Culture of Research
    • Engagement Awards
    • Engagement Resources
    • Engage with Us

    Engagement Tools and Resources for Research

    This searchable peer-to-peer repository includes resources that can inform future work in patient-centered outcomes research.

    Engagement Awards

    Learn about our Engagement Awards program and view the announcements of all our open funding opportunities.

    Research Fundamentals: A New On-Demand Training

    It enables those new to health research or patient-centered research to learn more about the research process.

  • Funding Opportunities
    Close mega-menu

    Funding Opportunities

    • What & Who We Fund
    • What You Need to Know to Apply
    • Applicant Training
    • Merit Review
    • Awardee Resources
    • Help Center

    PCORI Funding Opportunities

    View and learn about the newly opened funding announcements and the upcoming PFAs in 2021.

    Tips for Submitting a Responsive LOI

    Find out what PCORI looks for in a letter of intent (LOI) along with other helpful tips.

    PCORI Awardee Resources

    These resources can help awardees in complying with the terms and conditions of their contract.

  • Meetings & Events
    Close mega-menu

    Meetings & Events

    • Upcoming
    • Past Events

    PCORI 2021 and Beyond

    During this webinar, PCORI leaders shared ways to get involved in PCOR, improvements to our funding opportunities, and more.

    2020 PCORI Annual Meeting

    Watch recordings of sessions and view titles and descriptions of posters presented at the virtual meeting.

    PCORI Board of Governors Meeting: April 13, 1:00pm ET

    Tune in as the Board discusses possible topics in the development of upcoming PCORI Funding Announcements, among other business. Register now.

You are here

  • Research & Results
  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Testing New Ways to Measure How Patie...

This project has results

Testing New Ways to Measure How Patients Rate Quality of Life

Sign Up for Updates to This Study  

Results Summary and Professional Abstract

Results Summary
Download Summary

Results Summary

What was the project about?

Many research studies seek to learn how treatments affect patients’ quality of life. Quality of life includes mood and energy. It also includes how people view their roles in their families or communities and whether they can perform those roles. Researchers use surveys to ask about patients’ quality of life. But patients may answer the same question differently depending on their age, gender, or where they live. Some patients may think about their work roles while others may think about their families or social lives. How patients think about quality of life can affect what researchers learn about the effects of treatment.

In this study, the research team tested two surveys they created to measure differences in how patients think about their quality of life. The first, long survey had 74 questions, and the second, short survey had 23 questions.

What did the research team do?

The research team used statistical methods to compare how well the two surveys measured patients’ reports of quality of life. The team compared patients’ answers to questions in the two surveys. They also checked if the short survey worked as well as the long one.

The study included 110 patients treated for bladder cancer at three hospitals. Of these, 72 percent were white, 17 percent were black, and 16 percent were multiracial. The average age was 71, and 70 percent were men. Patients filled out the two surveys at the start of the study and again three months later. They also filled out other surveys about mood and life experiences.

Patients, doctors, and patient advocates gave input on the study design.

What were the results?

The research team found that both surveys accurately measured how different patients think about their quality of life.

The research team found little overlap between the two surveys. The long survey captured more information than the short survey.

Both surveys predicted how quality of life responses change with changes in mood and life experiences. However, the long survey did better at these predictions than the short survey.

What were the limits of the project?

The study included a small number of patients with bladder cancer. Results may differ if the study included more patients or patients with other health problems. Also, the study lasted three months. Three months may not be enough time to study long-term changes in quality of life.

Future studies could test the surveys with patients in other locations or with other health problems.

How can people use the results?

Researchers can use these surveys when considering ways to look at how treatments affect patients’ quality of life.

Professional Abstract

Professional Abstract

Background

Quality of life (QOL) assessments can help researchers measure how treatments affect patients. However, a patient’s relationships, illness, and treatment can affect how patients assess QOL. These factors can change over time, and they can change how a patient assesses QOL, known as response shift. Measuring differences in patients’ QOL assessments requires instruments that address these factors.

In this study, researchers tested two such instruments: the 74-item QOL Appraisal Profile Version 2 (QOLAPv2) and the 23-item Brief Appraisal Inventory (BAI).

Objective

To test the validity and ease of administration of the QOLAPv2 and BAI for measuring differences in how patients assess QOL

Study Design

Design Element Description
Design Prospective cohort study
Data Sources and Data Sets Patient electronic health records, surveys, and interviews at 3 medical centers
Analytic Approach
  • Correlations, principal component analysis, and multiple regressions in validation and mediation analyses
  • Canonical correlations and regressions to test redundancy between the 2 instruments
Outcomes
  • Differences in patients’ responses based on demographic variables
  • Response shift
  • Redundancy between the measures

Methods

Researchers tested the QOLAPv2 and BAI in a prospective cohort study that included 110 patients treated for bladder cancer. Of these, 72% were white, 17% were black, and 16% were multiracial. The average age was 71, and 70% were male. Patients filled out the instruments at the beginning of the study and again three months later. They also completed other surveys that measured mood and life experiences.

To test construct validity, researchers examined relationships between the QOL assessment items and patients’ age, gender, and socioeconomic characteristics, using correlations and regressions.

Researchers conducted a redundancy analysis to test whether the BAI could serve in place of the longer QOLAPv2, using correlations, principal component analysis, and regression models to compare the two instruments.

To examine response shift, researchers used regression models to assess whether the instruments accounted for changes in QOL due to changes in mood and life experiences.

Patients, other researchers, patient advocates, and healthcare providers helped develop the study.

Results

Construct validity. Demographic variables accounted for differences across patients’ QOL responses. For example, in the BAI and QOLAPv2, younger patients were more likely than older patients to emphasize work roles and independence. In the QOLAPv2, older patients were more likely than younger patients to prioritize staying in their current home as long as possible.

Redundancy. Correlations between the QOLAPv2 and BAI were statistically significant. However, the shared variance ranged between 9% and 28%, indicating low redundancy and low overlap between the two instruments.

Response shift. Both instruments accurately measured response shift of QOL outcomes with changes in mood and life experiences. Compared with the BAI, the QOLAPv2 instrument performed better in predicting changes in QOL and capturing response shift effects.

Limitations

Researchers tested the instruments with a small sample of patients with a specific health condition. Results may differ if the study included more patients or patients with other health problems. The study’s three-month follow-up period may have been too short to capture additional changes in QOL over time.

Conclusions and Relevance

Researchers can use the QOLAPv2 and BAI to improve interpretation of QOL outcomes and changes in QOL outcomes across patients. The BAI may be a useful alternative when the QOLAPv2’s length makes it impractical to use.

Future Research Needs

Future research could further test the validity of both instruments with populations who have other health conditions. Researchers could also examine how to improve the redundancy between the BAI and QOLAPv2.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Journal Articles

Related Articles

Quality of Life Research

Leveraging Latent Dirichlet Allocation in processing free-text personal goals among patients undergoing bladder cancer surgery

World Journal of Urology

Propensity-matched analysis of patient-reported outcomes for neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy

Value In Health

Perceptions of Response Burden Associated with Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Assessments in Oncology

Quality of Life Research

Appraisal assessment in patient-reported outcome research: methods for uncovering the personal context and meaning of quality of life

Quality of Life Research

Development of a practical outcome measure to account for individual differences in quality-of-life appraisal: the Brief Appraisal Inventory

Quality of Life Research

Distinguishing appraisal and personality influences on quality of life in chronic illness: introducing the quality-of-life Appraisal Profile version 2

Quality of Life Research

Resilience to health challenges is related to different ways of thinking: mediators of physical and emotional quality of life in a heterogeneous rare-disease cohort

Psycho-Oncology

Idiographic quality of life assessment before radical cystectomy

Quality of Life Research

When global rating of change contradicts observed change: Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time

Quality of Life Research

Refining a Web-based goal assessment interview: item reduction based on reliability and predictive validity

Quality of Life Research

Distilling the essence of appraisal: a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis

More on this Project  

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers asked that the researchers expand the background section of the report to describe the years of work that occurred before PCORI funding. They also asked for early clarification of the distinction between the broad construct of quality of life and the more specific health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) construct. The researchers edited the background section to better justify the practical need for this research and tried to clarify the theoretical arguments behind the importance of cognitive appraisal in making evaluations such as HR-QOL. The researchers also noted that all of the measures discussed in this report related specifically to HR-QOL but might overlap with non-health-related measures of well-being.
  • The reviewers cautioned that drawing strong conclusions about the two instruments tested may not be warranted at this point. In particular, the reviewers were not convinced that both instruments were practical and interchangeable given the difference in the length of the instruments. The researchers edited the discussion section to soften some of their recommendations and provide a clearer rationale for their conclusions. They also expanded their comparison of the two instruments’ usability, noting especially the trade-offs between the longer and shorter measures. They said that further validation is needed to make a stronger recommendation about the two instruments and is underway.
  • The reviewers noted that the stakeholder panel, including those stakeholders with experience as patients, was drawn from highly trained professional fields and not representative of patients generally. The researchers said they brought together stakeholders who had expertise as clinicians, policy makers, or researchers because they expected the discussions to be technical. The fact that some of the stakeholders also had experience as patients was not considered when the researchers recruited the stakeholders.  The researchers also based most of their consideration of patient needs on a decade of earlier research that involved asking patients questions about appraisal assessment.
  • The reviewers reminded the researchers that the Draft Final Research Report’s instructions ask for numerical results to include 95 percent confidence intervals that will convey the magnitude of the effect rather than only p-values to address statistical significance. The researchers explained that this information would not change the interpretability of the report, since they chose only statistically significant predictors to include in their regression models, so the magnitude of the relationship is not important. The 95 percent confidence intervals would also not fit well in the results tables, which are already quite large. In the discussion, the researchers went on to say that they would need to complete several more studies and a meta-analysis of appraisal and response shift differences in order to calculate the magnitude of the effect on appraisal of study and sample characteristics.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

View the COI disclosure form.

Project Details

Principal Investigator
Bruce D. Rapkin, PhD
Project Status
Completed; PCORI Public and Professional Abstracts, and Final Research Report Posted
Project Title
Development of Practical Outcome Measures to Account for Individual Differences and Temporal Changes in Quality of Life Appraisal
Board Approval Date
December 2013
Project End Date
September 2019
Organization
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Yeshiva University
Year Awarded
2013
State
New York
Year Completed
2019
Project Type
Research Project
Health Conditions  
Cancer
Bladder Cancer
Infectious Diseases
HIV/AIDS
Muscular and Skeletal Disorders
Degenerative Muscular Disorders
Funding Announcement
Improving Methods for Conducting Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Project Budget
$1,108,457
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
10.25302/03.2020.ME.130600781
Study Registration Information
HSRP20143593
Page Last Updated: 
June 9, 2020

About Us

  • Our Programs
  • Governance
  • Financials and Reports
  • Procurement Opportunities
  • Our Staff
  • Our Vision & Mission
  • Contact Us

Research & Results

  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Research Fundamentals
  • Research Results Highlights
  • Putting Evidence to Work
  • Peer Review
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • About Our Research

Engagement

  • The Value of Engagement
  • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
  • Influencing the Culture of Research
  • Engagement Awards
  • Engagement Resources
  • Engage with Us

Funding Opportunities

  • What & Who We Fund
  • What You Need to Know to Apply
  • Applicant Training
  • Merit Review
  • Awardee Resources
  • Help Center

Meetings & Events

April 12
Engagement Awards 2021 Special Cycle -- Applicant Office Hours (Three)
April 13
Board of Governors Meeting: April 13, 2021
April 19
Increasing Vaccine Confidence among Long-Term Care Workers: Expedited COVID-19 PFA -- Applicant Town Hall

PCORI

Footer contact address

Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute

1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 827-7700 | Fax: (202) 355-9558
info@pcori.org

Subscribe to Newsletter

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Vimeo

© 2011-2021 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademark Usage Guidelines | Credits | Help Center