Introduction
Methods
Criteria and Description (Bredow,[10]) | Wilson &; Cleary Model of HRQOL[12] | Ferrans et al. Revised Wilson and Cleary Model of HRQOL[13] | World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (WHO ICF)[3] |
---|---|---|---|
Internal criticism
| |||
Adequacy
| |||
Addresses a defined area | |||
· Completeness | · Complete overall conceptualization of HRQOL from biomedical and social science perspectives | · Expanded Wilson &; Cleary’s model to better explicate individual and environmental factors | · Complete overall conceptualization of health from biomedical and social science perspectives |
· Gaps | · Gaps include management of therapeutic regimens and self-management | · Gaps still include management of therapeutic regimens and self-management | · Gaps include determinants of health, management of risk factors, and self-management |
· Need for refinement | · Refinement for specific practice situations needed. | · Refinement for specific practice situations needed. | · Refinement for specific practice situations needed. |
Clarity
| · Main concepts well-defined, although individual and environmental characteristics not explained. | · Main concepts well-defined, including individual and environmental characteristics. | · Main concepts well-defined, with the exception of overlap between activities and participation. |
Explicit components | · Explicit proposition that dominant relationships exist with the potential for reciprocal relationships. | · Explicit proposition that dominant relationships exist with the potential for reciprocal relationships. | · Explicit propositions exist with reciprocal relationships that can be used to map the constructs and domains. |
· Concepts (components) defined | · Strength of the relationships of each component is unclear and with each additional relationship the complexity increases. | · Propositions were added with individual and environmental characteristics. | · Explicit assumption that model provides a multipurpose classification and can serve as a unified and standard language for health care workers, researchers, policy-makers, and the public. |
· Explicit propositions (Relationships) | · Other relationships were implied. | · Nonmedical factors removed; described as part of individual and environmental characteristics. | |
· Explicit assumptions (Beliefs) | · Explicit assumption that understanding relationships among these domains will lead to the design of optimally effective clinical interventions. | · Explicit assumption that understanding relationships among these domains will lead to the design of optimally effective clinical interventions. | · Another explicit assumption is that model can be used to help plan interventions for functional goals and health, worldwide. |
Consistency
| |||
Consistency | |||
· Concepts Congruency | · Concepts consistently defined. | · Concepts consistently defined. | · Concepts consistently defined. |
· Assumptions (beliefs) | · Assumptions were congruent | · Assumptions were congruent | · Assumptions were congruent |
· Propositions (relationships) | · The figure depicts dominant directional relationships whereas the text mentions reciprocal and other non-depicted relationships. | · Propositions were congruent. | · Propositions were congruent. |
Logical development
| · Emerged based on research from biomedical and social sciences. | · Revision of Wilson &; Cleary | · Integration of medical and social models for a biopsychosocial approach. |
Based on previous work Evidence supports | · Relationships depicted don’t always hold true, research evidence supports lack of relationships in some instances (e.g., biological vs. symptoms) | · Emerged based on empirical evidence and the need for further clarity. | · Evolved over time from the WHO ICIDH model in 1980 to the WHO ICF in 2001, with the WHO ICF-CY for children and adolescents added in 2007. |
· Based on systematic field trials and international consultation. | |||
Level of development
| |||
Level of abstraction (grand, middle range, or practice) | · Middle range but global | Middle range but global | Middle range but global |
External criticism
| |||
Complexity
| |||
· Number of concepts | · 5 main abstract concepts (biological/physiological, symptom status, functional status, general health, quality of life) | · 5 main abstract concepts with further development of the individual and environmental factors. | · 6 main abstract concepts (body functions, body structures, activity, participation, environmental factors, and personal factors). |
· Parsimony | · Parsimonious because used only 5 main concepts to explain abstract HRQOL. | · Parsimonious because used only 7 main concepts to explain abstract HRQOL. | · Parsimonious because used only 6 main concepts to explain abstract health and health-related states. |
· Complexity | · Overall model is complex with multiple relationships | · Overall model is complex with multiple relationships | · Overall model is complex with multiple relationships |
Discrimination
| · First HRQOL model to combine biomedical with social science | · Revised Wilson and Cleary’s HRQOL model | · Belongs to a family of WHO Classifications, with the WHO ICF being specific to functioning and disability. |
Unique theory of HRQOL with clear boundaries | · Unique to HRQOL | · Unique to HRQOL | · Not unique to HRQOL. |
· Boundaries are purposefully not clear as two theories are combined and the relationships between concepts are additive. | · Clear boundaries and limited to HRQOL of individuals. | · Clear boundaries addressing health and health-related domains. | |
· Hypotheses generation may help to clarify boundaries. | · Does not cover non-health related circumstances. | ||
Reality convergence
| · Moving from cellular level to quality of life in model seems more realistic than traditional biomedical model by itself. | · Realism added with the incorporation of nonmedical factors into individual and environmental factors. | · Assumptions seem true, realistic, and consistent. |
· Assumptions “real world” | · “Makes sense” for real world application. | · “Makes sense” for real world application. | · “Makes sense” for real world application. |
· Theory/model “makes sense” | · Assumptions are difficult to actualize | · Assumptions more realistic | |
Pragmatic
| Guided literature applied to real world settings: | Guided literature applied to real world settings: | Guided literature applied to real world settings: |
Operationalized in real-life settings | · 3 literature reviews, | · 2 literature reviews | · 3 literature reviews |
· 4 descriptive, | · 1 instrument development | · 2 instrument development | |
Model testing in entirety not done | Model testing in entirety not done | ||
· 6 correlational, | · Overall, generic and situation-specific measures exist | · Overall, generic and situation-specific measures exist | |
· 1 randomized trial, | · Response shift is a concern for general health and quality of life components | · Response shift may also be a concern. | |
· 1 qualitative, | |||
· 1 mixed methods | |||
· 1 model revision (Ferrans) Model testing in entirety rarely done | |||
· Overall, generic and situation-specific measures exist | |||
· Response shift is a concern for general health and quality of life components | |||
Scope
| |||
· breadth of theory/model | · Broad model to explain complex nature of HRQOL | · Further broadens Wilson and Cleary’s scope by expanding on individual and environmental factors | · Broad model to explain health and health-related domains for all people. |
· applies across ages (lifespan), health and disease conditions, cultures, socioeconomics, and individuals/families/ communities | · Could apply to individuals of all ages, life spans, health and disease conditions, and perhaps cultures depending on their orientation to the meaning of quality of life and general health. | · Could apply to individuals of all ages, life spans, health and disease conditions, and cultures across the world. | |
· WHO ICF-CY specifically covers infants, children, and adolescentzs. | |||
· May not apply to those who are unable to define their own general health or quality of life (e.g., infants, comatose), or those who have very limited functioning. | · Focus is on individuals (with or without disabilities), families, communities, and populations. | ||
· Primarily applies to individuals, less to families and communities. | |||
Significance
| · Most widely cited HRQOL model | · Emerging citations for Revised HRQOL model | · Emerging citations for the use of the WHO ICF for hypothesis testing (mainly instrument development). |
· Potential impact on practice | · Guides HRQOL assessment toward a more comprehensive approach to improving HRQOL Potential for intervention research but limited evidence exists to date. | · Guides HRQOL assessment toward a more comprehensive approach to improving HRQOL | · As a clinical tool, can be used for needs assessments, matching treatments with conditions, and evaluating outcomes. |
· Hypotheses lead to assessment or interventions | · Because of the complexity of the model and lack of testing of the full model, supporting interventions would be difficult. | · Potential for intervention research but limited evidence exists to date. | · As a research tool, can be used for measuring quality of life, outcomes, environmental factors, or other constructs. |
· Potential for intervention research but limited evidence exists to date. More of a mapping and classification framework, rather than hypothesis generating. | |||
Utility
| Hypothesis generating for: | Hypothesis generating for: | Hypothesis generating for: |
Hypothesis generating for clinicians, researchers, epidemiologists, policymakers | · Clinicians for a broader view of HRQOL than just biological factors and symptoms. | · Clinicians for a broader view of HRQOL than just biological factors and symptoms. | · Clinicians for needs assessments, matching treatments with conditions, vocational assessment, and rehabilitation and outcome evaluation |
· Researchers to guide measurement and intervention studies: | · Expands focus of article (audience) from physicians (Wilson &; Cleary) to nurses and other health professionals (Ferrans). Model could be applied to any health care discipline. | · Researchers to guide development of measures for outcomes, quality of life, or environmental factors | |
· Potentially relevant to epidemiologists if using global measures across populations (e.g., SF-36). | · Researchers to guide measurement and intervention studies. | · Epidemiologists to collect and record data for populations and management information systems | |
· More research evidence and emphasis on environmental factors needed to convince policymakers. | · Potentially relevant to epidemiologists if using global measures across populations (e.g., SF-36). | · Policymakers to plan social security, compensation systems, and policies. | |
· More research evidence and emphasis on environmental factors needed to convince policymakers. | · Educators to design curriculums that emphasize awareness and social action. | ||
· Although potential for hypothesis generation in these areas, there is currently limited evidence found in the HRQOL literature documenting these applications. |
Results
Most frequently used HRQOL models
Model used [Reference] | Authors [Reference] Country | Purpose | Design | Sample | Model guided or derived |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Baker, Pankhurst, &; Robinson [25] United Kingdom | To test Wilson and Cleary’s conceptual model of the direct and mediated pathways between clinical and non-clinical variables in relation to oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL). | Randomized Controlled Trial | 85 patients with xerostomia attending outpatient clinics | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Cosby, Holzemer, Henry, &; Portillo [28] United States | To determine relationships among anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia and the five dimensions of the Wilson and Cleary model of HRQOL. | Correlational | 146 hospitalized patients with AIDS | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Frank, Auslander, &; Weissgarten [29] Israel | To examine quality of life among patients undergoing different types of treatment for end-stage renal disease at different points of the disease. | Descriptive | 72 patients with end-stage renal disease | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Hofer, Benzer, Alber, Ruttmann, Kopp, Schussler, et al. [30] Austria, Ireland, Germany | To apply the Wilson and Cleary model a priori to patients with coronary artery disease. | Correlational | 465 patients with coronary artery disease | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Janz, Janevic, Dodge, Fingerlin, Schork, Mosca, et al., [31] United States | To describe the impact of clinical and psychosocial factors on the quality of life of older women with heart disease. | Descriptive | 570 older women with heart disease | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Krethong, Jirapaet, Jitpanya, &; Sloan [32] Thailand | To examine causal relationships among bio-physiological status, symptoms, functional status, general health perception, HRQOL, and social support. | Correlational | 422 Thai patients with heart failure | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Mathias, Gao, Miller, Cella, Snyder, Turner, et al. [27] United States | To develop a conceptual model to describe the impact of immune thrombocytopenic purpura on HRQOL. | Qualitative &; Literature Review | 23 patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura | Guided Derived |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Mathisen, Andersen, Veenstra, Wahl, Hanestad, &; Fosse [33] Norway | To determine whether reciprocal relationships existed between quality of life and health appraisal in those with coronary artery bypass surgery. | Correlational | 120 patients with coronary artery bypass surgery | Guided Derived |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Orfila, Ferrer, Lamarca, Tebe, Domingo-Salvany, &; Alonso [34] Spain | To determine whether gender differences in HRQOL among the elderly are explained by differences in performance-based functional capacity and chronic conditions. | Descriptive | 544 elderly persons | Guided Derived |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Penckofer Ferrans, Fink, Barrett, &; Holm [23] United States | To determine effect of coronary artery bypass Graft (CABG) surgery on quality of life of women. | Descriptive | 61 women with coronary artery bypass Surgery | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Sousa [35] United States | To describe a HRQOL model to guide clinical practice. | Literature Review | NA | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Sousa &; Kwok [24] United States | To validate Wilson &; Cleary’s model using structural equation modeling in HIV+ patients. | Correlational | 917 HIV+ patients | Guided |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Vidrine, Amick, Gritz, &; Arduino [36] Israel | To empirically assess a proximal-distal framework for conceptualizing HRQOL in individuals living with HIV/AIDS. An integrated model based on Wilson and Cleary (2005) was used. | Correlational | 348 people with HIV/AIDS | Guided Derived |
Wilson &; Cleary [12] | Wettergren, Bjorkholm, Axdorph, &; Langius-Eklof, [26] Sweden | To examine determinants of HRQOL in long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s Disease. | Mixed Methods | 121 long-term Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors + 236 healthy controls | Guided |
Ferrans et al. [13] | Daggett, Bakas, &; Habermann [37] United States | To identify gaps in current knowledge of HRQOL and traumatic brain injury and apply findings to developing recommendations for future research with combat veterans with traumatic brain injury. | Literature Review | N/A | Guided |
Ferrans &; Powers [19] | Hill, Aldag, Hekel, Riner, &; Bloomfield [38] United States | To develop and test psychometric properties of a maternal post-partum quality of life measure. | Instrument Development | 184 post partum mothers | Guided |
Ferrans &; Powers [19] | Petchprapai &; Winkelman [39] Thailand United States | To analyze the literature related to the clinical, theoretical, and empirical determinates of mild traumatic brain injury. | Literature Review | N/A | Guided |
World Health Organization [20] | Fischer, LaRocca, Miller, Ritvo, Andrews, &; Paty [40] Canada &; United States | To (1) review recent efforts to assess the broader impact of MS on quality of life; (2) describe the development of the MS Quality of Life Inventory (MSQLI); (3) discuss issues to consider in selecting an MS quality of life instrument. | Instrument Development | 15 MS patients in pilot test, 300 MS patients in field test | Guided |
World Health Organization [21] | Hays, Hahn, &; Marshall [41] United States | To examine different conceptual models of HRQOL and examine implications of these perspectives for measurement of HRQOL in persons with disabilities. | Literature Review | N/A | Guided |
World Health Organization [20] | John [15] Germany | To explore the dimensional structure of OHRQOL using experts’ opinions using a conceptual model of oral health. | Instrument Development | 10 dentists &; 4 psychologists | Guided |
World Health Organization [20] | Post, deWitte, &; Schrijvers [42] Netherlands | To extend the World Health Organization international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps in rehabilitation. | Literature Review | N/A | Guided Derived |
Ferrans, Zerwic, Wilbur, &; Larson [13] United States | To revise the Wilson and Cleary model of HRQOL. | Model Revision | N/A | Guided Derived | |
Valderas &; Alonso [22] United Kingdom Spain | To develop a classification system for patient-reported outcome measures based on Wilson &; Cleary’s HRQOL conceptual model and the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning. | Literature Review | NA | Guided Derived |