IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Measuring Quality of Life in Patients with Schizophrenia: An Update

  • A. George. Awad

    (Department of Psychiatry and the Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; International Society for CNS Clinical Trials & Methodology (ISCTM), Nashville, TN, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Lakshmi N.P. Voruganti

    (Department of Psychiatry, Oakville General Hospital, Oakville, ON, Canada)

Registered author(s):

    In 1997, we published a review in PharmacoEconomics about quality of life (QOL) measurement in patients with schizophrenia. The objective of this article is to provide an update, as well as to revisit the development of the construct of QOL and its measurement as applied to schizophrenia. Since our previous article, there has been significant growth in the number of publications about QOL in schizophrenia. Unfortunately, alongside this significant increase in research interest, a number of concerns have also risen about the limitations and lack of impact the concept of QOL has on clinical care and health-policy decision making. A number of concerns previously outlined (such as lack of consensus on a uniform definition of QOL) continue to be an issue. However, we believe that a uniform definition may not be possible, and instead, it may be preferable to have several definitions, which may enrich the concept and broaden its usefulness. Some of the scales we reviewed in 1997 continue to be in use, while others are now rarely or never used. New scales with better psychometrics have been introduced, but most are without theoretical or conceptual foundation. On the other hand, the field of scaling in general has been changing over the past few years and is moving towards a new approach for scale development, based on item response theory, item banks and computer adaptive testing. Unfortunately, this has not extended to QOL in schizophrenia. There continues to be a dearth of theoretical and conceptual models for QOL in schizophrenia, which seems to create the perception that the construct lacks a good theoretical and scientific foundation. One of the major gaps identified in this review is the recognized lack of impact of QOL measurements on clinical management or policy decision making. The majority of publications continue to focus on measurement rather than what to do with the data. The lack of strategies to integrate QOL data in clinical care, as well as the failure to contribute to policy decisions, particularly in cost analysis or resource allocations, has created the perception that the construct of QOL in schizophrenia is not that useful. It is evident that, for QOL in schizophrenia to regain its promise, researchers must take the ultimate next step beyond measurement: to develop credible strategies for integrating QOL data in clinical practice. Additionally, more focused research is needed to demonstrate the role of QOL, not only as an outcome in itself but also as a contributor to other outcomes, such as adherence to medications, more satisfaction, less resource utilization and so on. Since self-appraisal of QOL does not happen in a vacuum but relates to the total human experience in all its biological, psychosocial and environmental aspects, particular attention must also be focused on important neurobiological dimensions such as affect and cognition. Both are significantly affected by the illness itself and its treatment.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 183-195

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:183-195
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:183-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.