IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i10p1447-1462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What things are important in people's lives? A survey of the public's judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life

Author

Listed:
  • Bowling, Ann

Abstract

The research presented here aimed to obtain population norms on pertinent domains of quality of life and health related quality of life, and the relative importance of these domains to people. The OPCS Omnibus Survey was used as the vehicle for the study. This is a monthly survey of a random sample of 2000 adult members of the population in Great Britain, based on a random sample of households. The data was collected for a one month period. The response rate to the survey was 77%. In response to a generic question about the five (priority ordered) most important things in their lives (good or bad), respondents were most likely to freely mention as the first most important thing in their lives relationships with family or relatives, followed by their own health, the health of another (close) person and finances/standard of living/housing. When responses relating to respondents' priority ranked areas 1-5 were combined, the most frequently mentioned area of life was finances/standard of living/housing, followed by relationships with family and friends, own health, the health of close others and social life/leisure activities. Thus, different distributions were obtained depending on whether priority ordering or frequency with which item was mentioned was analysed. Of those who reported a longstanding illness, the conditions which were most likely to be reported as affecting their lives were respiratory conditions, joint disorders and heart and circulatory diseases. The most commonly freely mentioned first most important effects of the longstanding illness on their lives were (in order of frequency) ability to get out and about/stand/walk/go out shopping, being able to work/find a job and effects on social life/leisure activities (based on office coding from verbatim responses recorded on the questionnaire). When the responses relating to respondents' priority ranks 1-5 were combined, the most frequently mentioned area of life affected was ability to get out and about/stand/walk/go out shopping, followed by social life/leisure activities, and availability of work/ability to work. Again, differences in distributions were obtained depending on the method of analysis. Further investigations also revealed differences according to the method of questioning and coding (respondent vs office). When respondents selected their own codes from a showcard in relation to health effects, there were some discrepancies with their (office coded) verbatim replies (which were recorded by the interviewer before they saw the showcard, for later office coding). The showcard had the effect of prompting them, and the then most commonly mentioned first most important effects of the longstanding illness on their lives were (in order of frequency) pain, tiredness/lack of energy/lethargy, social life/leisure activities, and availability of work/ability to work. This discrepancy illustrates the biasing influence of using showcards, in comparison with the open coding of actual verbatim responses back in the office (on the assumption that the latter are more valid-unprompted-responses). Analysis of the domains included in the most popularly used health status scales, which are used to measure health related quality of life, revealed that several items ranked as important by the public were missing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bowling, Ann, 1995. "What things are important in people's lives? A survey of the public's judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1447-1462, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:10:p:1447-1462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00113-L
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:10:p:1447-1462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.