Patien Patient Self-Report

Patients are asked to rate their symptom for each question for a period of two weeks. The patient is the one who rates himself, therefore, this instrument’s results are subjective. The sum total is the calculated, and interpreted to

The WHOQOL surveys were developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to assess population groups in a variety of situations in an effort to evaluate quality of life across various cultures (University of Washington, 2016). WHOQOL-OLD is one such measure for older adults, which was created in part because other QOL scales like WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-BREF did not address some of the more pertinent issues that individuals face in the latter portion of their lives (University of Washington, 2016). Similar to the other quality of life assessment tools created by WHO, WHOQOL-OLD includes basic, yet important quality of life indicators that touch upon the physical, psychological and environmental states of individuals as well as the quality of

Health can be defined in many different ways, for example, the Bio-Medical model of health believes health to be the absence of pain, biological abnormalities and diseases. Whereas most Socio-medical models of health such as the World Health Organisation consider health to involve a range of different factors such as environment, social life and mental wellbeing alongside the more recognised factors of health e.g. pain and sickness. From a personal perspective, health should cover all aspects, whether it is social, environmental, psychological and physical. All of these aspects are important aspects to a person’s wellbeing. (Taylor & field 2003)

There is no universally accepted definition for quality of life but it incorporates the individual’s subjective view of a broad range of clinical, functional, and personal aspects. Researchers have developed two types of quality of life assessments. The first is health related quality of life (HRQOL), which assesses the client’s perception of how their health status affects their physical, psychological, and social functioning, and well-being. The assessment is based on a series of questions the client is asked. The second type is the overall quality of life (OQOL), which focuses on the client’s satisfaction with life in general, not just in relation to the limitations of functioning that are related to disease. According to Laudet (2011), “One influential definition of OQOL drafted by the World Health Organization (WHO) is an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to there goals, expectations, standards and concerns” (WHOQOL Group, 1995, para. 5). The standard for measuring OQOL is the WHO quality of life instrument, which assesses the client’s perception of how they are functioning objectively. The subjective views obtained by QOL measures are important because they offer a better perspective to the

The first step in the analysis was to categorize each patient by whether or not they passed the clinical threshold during their treatment and if their change was reliable. Clinical cutoff scores and Reliable Change Indexes (RCI) for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were obtained from past research [@Delgadillo2012; @Griffiths2015; @Kroenke2001; @Spitzer2006]. Clinical cutoff scores for the BASE-6 were obtained from unpublished pilot research and corresponded to the clinical cutoff of the commonly used OQ-45 measure.

This questionnaire has several subdomain scores including Vitality, Physical Functioning or Emotional Role Functioning and two component scores Physical (SF-PCS) respectively Mental (SF-MCS), the scores ranging from 0 (worst possible) to 100 (best possible) [10]. In this study, SF-36 was used to compare HRQoL in both populations and in particular, to detect the presence of the clinically significant fatigue: this is defined with scores for Vitality subdomain of 50 or less. This cut-off being validated in other autoimmune debilitating diseases such as multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis [11-13].

| Based on explicit knowledge and this can be easy and fast to capture and analyse.Results can be generalised to larger populationsCan be repeated – therefore good test re-test reliability and validityStatistical analyses and interpretation are

After a careful reading, Health Status Outcome (HSO) studies are focused on the ending result or outcome of medical care given, taking into account the health care process, and well being of patients and the population.  Ultimately, these studies are looking at the health status of the patient and are related to diagnosis. For example, lab test results, complication rates, morbidity rates, functional status, well being, and satisfaction with care given are health status outcomes.  Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) are subjective reports generated from the patient either through diaries, self-completed questionnaires, or interviews regarding their treatment.  PRO helps with research to evaluate patient’s perception, symptoms, satisfaction

Assessment tools serve the purpose of evaluating risk factors that may be overlooked during a brief assessment. It is a method of attaining information as part of the overall assessment of a patient. These tools can be valuable for health care professionals to utilize for focused areas of concern. There are a countless number of assessment tools to aid health care professionals in addressing potential downfalls. Assessment tools help facilitate a health care professional to evaluate various aspects of a patient’s health.

First, a professional translator, with experience from medical sciences, translated the original question items into Finnish. The draft was checked and corrected by two of the researchers (AR, JR) and an MS nurse expert on HRQOL. Thereafter, the Finnish version was retranslated into English by an independent specialist (a medical doctor). The publisher of the original MSQOL-54 gave her permission for the use of the scale after having commented on the back translation.

In the current study, the data from the baseline evaluation will be used to select the best item reflecting each identified domain of HRQL. These selected items will be used to develop the new PRO HRQL assessment tool. Approximately, 500 patients completed a comprehensive questionnaire package included 56 items. The questionnaires that were used in the study included Brief Pain Inventory [44], PHQ-9 [45],

expectations, standards and concerns”, P.11 107. While a number of HRQOL definitions have been proposed108-111, these all suggest that biopsychosocial dimensions have a clear impact on individuals’ self-rated health (SRH) and overall well-being in the context of a specific medical condition112. In other words, HRQOL assesses QOL in the clinical medical context113.

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a complex construct. Given the array of definitions and perspectives, HRQOL is challenging to define, embed in a theoretical framework, and operationalize. While theory and research on HRQOL in children have grown, adequate methods to measure this construct are needed. As such, a previous review of literature on health related quality of life in children revealed an increase in theoretical articles that addresses the importance of the problem but lack adequate instruments to assess children’s health related quality of life (Ravens-Sieberer & Bullinger, 1998) . Hence, instruments like the KINDL-R were developed.

All clinician-rated test should have three types of reliability: internal reliability, retest reliability, and interrater reliability (Bagby, Ryder, Schuller, & Marshall, 2004). Research regarding who the HRSD was normed on is unavailable. However, Cusin et al. (2012) recently reported on the HRSD psychometrics properties. Interrater reliability of the total scores for the HRSD is considered to be a strong relationship ranging from 0.80–0.98, with Cronbach alpha estimates of ≥0.70 which is an adequate score. Interrater reliability examines the relationship between scores provided by different raters observing the same phenomenon and Cronbach's alpha, is the average of all possible split-half reliabilities (Shultz, Whitney, & Zickar,

The World Health Organization defines quality of life as a person’s perceptions of their position in life in the setting of the culture and value systems in which they live in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns (Krageloh et al., 2011). The WHOQOL-100 was developed by the World Health Organization composed of many different doctors and other healthcare providers in order to develop an assessment that could be used internationally and cross-culturally to measure a person’s overall quality of life and well-being, instead of a specific disease. This assessment led to the development of the WHOQOL-BREF, which is an abbreviated version of the WHOQOL-100 because the WHOQOL-100 is too lengthy for practical use; WHOQOL-BREF includes instructions for administering and scoring the assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to provide quality assessments in healthcare, focus attention on all aspects of health, and produce interventions that increase focus on a patient’s well-being (Harper, 1996). There were three main stages to the development of the WHOQOL assessment. The first stage of development consisted of the establishment of a definition of quality of life and how the assessment would be used internationally. The second stage of development explored the quality of life cross-culturally among different fields to establish relevance to the quality of life assessment. The third stage of