MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978211511 · doi:10.1586/14737167.3.1.13

Methods and models in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) research: a state-of-the-art review

2003· review· en· W1978211511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Berzon, Jordi Alonso, Peter Fayers, Jane Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Health related quality of lifeQuality-adjusted life yearQuality (philosophy)MedicinePublic economicsManagement scienceGerontologyPsychologyPolitical scienceRisk analysis (engineering)MEDLINEEconomicsNursingCost effectivenessEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 9th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) addressed state-ofthe-art methods and theoretical models for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and focused on opportunities for the use of these tools within practical settings and circumstances. The scientific program was chaired by Carolyn Schwartz (University of Massachusetts Medical School, MA, USA) and Jeff Sloan (Mayo Clinic, MN, USA). A variety of topics were addressed at the conference – chief among them were: • End-of-life issues • Chronic illness • The clinical significance and interpretation of research findings • Response shift • Adherence to therapy HRQOL at the end of life is a topic that does not ordinarily receive the attention it deserves. During the first plenary session, Tom Hack (CancerCare Manitoba, Canada) presented the results of a qualitative study through which the construct ‘dignity’ was operationalized and assessed. His approach to qualitative research, using innovative methodology undertaken with cancer patients receiving palliative care, was engaging and practical. At the same session, remarks provided by Carol Tishelman (Karolinska Institutet, Sweden) that focused on how to add precision to qualitative research were well received by the audience. The end-of-life issue received further attention at the conference during a special symposium chaired by Carolyn Schwartz. In the symposium, research was presented that ranged from new tools developed specifically for a seriously ill and/or dying population, to measuring the treatment preferences for those receiving end-of-life care. The end-of-life period and the issues raised by it are relevant for exploration by HRQOL research because the field has a natural relationship with chronic illness, regardless of whether the illness is in remission or is progressing. As is always the case at ISOQOL annual conferences, chronic illnesses of all sizes and shapes were fodder for HRQOL presentations. Topics that received special attention at one such session, chaired by Jane Scott (Mapi Values USA, NC, USA), included examination of models to accurately reflect the multidimensional nature of HRQOL assessment, using data from patients with AIDS, the psychological impact of cancer and treatment for it and how this relates to posttraumatic stress disorders, the relationship between HRQOL findings in patients with multiple sclerosis and other chronic neurological illnesses, HRQOL findings in cancer survivor patients and the interrelationships between pain, mental and physical health and HRQOL in people living with HIV infection. As the poster and oral research presented at the conference indicated, there is much interest in the development of more robust and precise instruments based on item banks and other state-of-the-art methodology. Computer-adapted testing, for example, has allowed researchers to develop instruments that require only a few items. However, due to the fact that each person’s response is dynamically matched to the best estimate of their level of health, these types of approaches result in shorter administration time, producing a final score that is practically identical in value and reliability to longer instruments which must be completed in their entirety to be effectively scored and interpreted. A debate regarding the pros and cons of computer-adaptive testing was moderated by David Osoba (QOL Consulting, Canada) during the conference. Three oral sessions were devoted to cancer. The papers presented and the issues discussed within one of these sessions included the use of QoL as a primary end-point within a lung cancer study. The paper, offered by Andrea Bezjak (Princess Margaret Hospital, Canada), was innovative because the successful use of HRQOL as a primary end-point was conducted within an international clinical study. Other noteworthy topics presented within this session, chaired by Galina Velikova (St James’s University Hospital, UK), included insights into:

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0170.027
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.590
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207