Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Review | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2012

Systematic review of health-related quality of life models

Zeitschrift:
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Tamilyn Bakas, Susan M McLennon, Janet S Carpenter, Janice M Buelow, Julie L Otte, Kathleen M Hanna, Marsha L Ellett, Kimberly A Hadler, Janet L Welch
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-10-134) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

TB provided overall leadership and contributed to the conception and design, participated in the review and critique process, drafted sections of the manuscript, and revised it critically for intellectual content. SMM, JSC, JMB, JLO, KMH, MLE, &; JLW contributed to the conception and design, participated in the review and critique process, drafted sections of the manuscript, and revised it critically for intellectual content. KAH acquired articles for review, abstracted findings to tables, contributed to analysis and interpretation, provided reference management, and drafted sections of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

A systematic literature review was conducted to (a) identify the most frequently used health-related quality of life (HRQOL) models and (b) critique those models.

Methods

Online search engines were queried using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We reviewed titles, abstracts, and then full-text articles for their relevance to this review. Then the most commonly used models were identified, reviewed in tables, and critiqued using published criteria.

Results

Of 1,602 titles identified, 100 articles from 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently used HRQOL models were: Wilson and Cleary (16%), Ferrans and colleagues (4%), or World Health Organization (WHO) (5%). Ferrans and colleagues’ model was a revision of Wilson and Cleary’s model and appeared to have the greatest potential to guide future HRQOL research and practice.

Conclusions

Recommendations are for researchers to use one of the three common HRQOL models unless there are compelling and clearly delineated reasons for creating new models. Disease-specific models can be derived from one of the three commonly used HRQOL models. We recommend Ferrans and colleagues’ model because they added individual and environmental characteristics to the popular Wilson and Cleary model to better explain HRQOL. Using a common HRQOL model across studies will promote a coherent body of evidence that will more quickly advance the science in the area of HRQOL.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1:Supplementary tables and references for the 100 Full-Text Articles reviewed for the manuscript entitled, “Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Models.”(DOCX 65 KB)
12955_2012_1044_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12955_2012_1044_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe