<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</description>
        <dc:date>2010-02-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/29" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/66" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/22" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/20" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/23" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/18" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/24" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/63" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/21" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/60" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/29">
        <title>The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale</title>
        <description>There is a need to assess the contribution of mood disorder, especially anxiety and depression, in order to understand the experience of suffering in the setting of medical practice.Most physicians are aware of this aspect of the illness of their patients but many feel incompetent to provide the patient with reliable information. The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale, or HADS, was designed to provide a simple yet reliable tool for use in medical practice. The term &apos;hospital&apos; in its title suggests that it is only valid in such a setting but many studies conducted throughout the world have confirmed that it is valid when used in community settings and primary care medical practice.It should be emphasised that self-assessment scales are only valid for screening purposes; definitive diagnosis must rest on the process of clinical examination.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/29</link>
                <dc:creator>Richard Snaith</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003, 1:29</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2003-08-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-29</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>29</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2003-08-01T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/66">
        <title>The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): translation and validation study of the Iranian version</title>
        <description>Background:
The objective of this study was to translate and to test the reliability and validity of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in Iran.
Methods:
Using a standard &apos;forward-backward&apos; translation procedure, the English language version of the questionnaire was translated into Persian (Iranian language). Then a sample of young people aged 18 to 25 years old completed the questionnaire. In addition, a short questionnaire containing demographic questions and a single measure of global quality of life was administered. To test reliability the internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach&apos;s alpha coefficient. Validity was performed using convergent validity. Finally, the factor structure of the questionnaire was extracted by performing principal component analysis using oblique factor solution.
Results:
In all 748 young people entered into the study. The mean age of respondents was 21.1 (SD = 2.1) years. Employing the recommended method of scoring (ranging from 0 to 12), the mean GHQ score was 3.7 (SD = 3.5). Reliability analysis showed satisfactory result (Cronbach&apos;s alpha coefficient = 0.87). Convergent validity indicated a significant negative correlation between the GHQ-12 and global quality of life scores as expected (r = -0.56, P &lt; 0.0001). The principal component analysis with oblique rotation solution showed that the GHQ-12 was a measure of psychological morbidity with two-factor structure that jointly accounted for 51% of the variance.
Conclusion:
The study findings showed that the Iranian version of the GHQ-12 has a good structural characteristic and is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used for measuring psychological well being in Iran.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/66</link>
                <dc:creator>Ali Montazeri</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Amir Mahmood Harirchi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mohammad Shariati</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gholamreza Garmaroudi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mehdi Ebadi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Abolfazl Fateh</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003, 1:66</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2003-11-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-66</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>66</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2003-11-13T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/22">
        <title>Development of a patient reported outcome scale for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: The Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS)</title>
        <description>Background:
Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in multiple sclerosis (MS). Best-practice guidelines suggest that health services should repeatedly assess fatigue in persons with MS. Several fatigue scales are available but concern has been expressed about their validity. The objective of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of a new scale for MS fatigue, the Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS).
Methods:
Qualitative analysis of 40 MS patient interviews had previously contributed to a coherent definition of fatigue, and a potential 52 item set representing the salient themes. A draft questionnaire was mailed out to 1223 people with MS, and the resulting data subjected to both factor and Rasch analysis.
Results:
Data from 635 (51.9% response) respondents were split randomly into an &apos;evaluation&apos; and &apos;validation&apos; sample. Exploratory factor analysis identified four potential subscales: &apos;physical&apos;, &apos;cognitive&apos;, &apos;relief by diurnal sleep or rest&apos; and &apos;abnormal nocturnal sleep and sleepiness&apos;. Rasch analysis led to further item reduction and the generation of a Summary scale comprising items from the Physical and Cognitive subscales. The scales were shown to fit Rasch model expectations, across both the evaluation and validation samples.
Conclusion:
A simple 10-item Summary scale, together with scales measuring the physical and cognitive components of fatigue, were validated for MS fatigue.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/22</link>
                <dc:creator>Roger Mills</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Carolyn Young</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Julie Pallant</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alan Tennant</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010, 8:22</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-12T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-22</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>22</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-12T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/20">
        <title>The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: Dimensions and Practical Applications</title>
        <description>The ability to effectively measure health-related quality-of-life longitudinally is central to describing the impacts of disease, treatment, or other insults, including normal aging, upon the patient. Over the last two decades, assessment of patient health status has undergone a dramatic paradigm shift, evolving from a predominant reliance on biochemical and physical measurements, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate, lipid profiles, or radiographs, to an emphasis upon health outcomes based on the patient&apos;s personal appreciation of their illness. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), published in 1980, was among the first instruments based on generic, patient-centered dimensions. The HAQ was designed to represent a model of patient-oriented outcome assessment and has played a major role in many diverse areas such as prediction of successful aging, inversion of the therapeutic pyramid in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), quantification of NSAID gastropathy, development of risk factor models for osteoarthrosis, and examination of mortality risks in RA.Evidenced by its use over the past two decades in diverse settings, the HAQ has established itself as a valuable, effective, and sensitive tool for measurement of health status. It is available in more than 60 languages and is supported by a bibliography of more than 500 references. It has increased the credibility and use of validated self-report measurement techniques as a quantifiable set of hard data endpoints and has contributed to a new appreciation of outcome assessment. In this article, information regarding the HAQ&apos;s development, content, dissemination and reference sources for its uses, translations, and validations are provided.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/20</link>
                <dc:creator>Bonnie Bruce</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>James Fries</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003, 1:20</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2003-06-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-20</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2003-06-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/23">
        <title>Using qualitative methods to inform the trade-off between content validity and consistency in utility assessment: the example of type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer&apos;s disease</title>
        <description>Background:
Key stakeholders regard generic utility instruments as suitable tools to inform health technology assessment decision-making regarding allocation of resources across competing interventions.  These instruments require a &apos;descriptor&apos;, a &apos;valuation&apos; and a &apos;perspective&apos; of the economic evaluation. There are various approaches that can be taken for each of these, offering a potential lack of consistency between instruments (a basic requirement for comparisons across diseases).  The &apos;reference method&apos; has been proposed as a way to address the limitations of the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). However, the degree to which generic measures can assess patients&apos; specific experiences with their disease would remain unresolved. This has been neglected in the discussions on methods development and its impact on the QALY values obtained and resulting cost per QALY estimate underestimated. This study explored the content of utility instruments relevant to type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer&apos;s disease (AD) as examples, and the role of qualitative research in informing the trade-off between content coverage and consistencyMethodA literature review was performed to identify qualitative and quantitative studies regarding patients&apos; experiences with type 2 diabetes or AD, and associated treatments. Conceptual models for each indication were developed. Generic- and disease-specific instruments were mapped to the conceptual models.
Results:
Findings showed that published descriptions of relevant concepts important to patients with type 2 diabetes or AD are available for consideration in deciding on the most comprehensive approach to utility assessment. While the 15-dimensional health related quality of life measure (15D) seemed the most comprehensive measure for both diseases, the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI 3) seemed to have the least coverage for type 2 diabetes and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) for AD. Furthermore, some of the utility instruments contained items that could not be mapped onto either of the proposed conceptual models.
Conclusions:
Content of the utility measure has a significant impact on the treatment effects that can be observed. This varies from one disease to the next and as such contributes to lack of consistency in observable utility effects and incremental utility scores. This observation appears to have been omitted from the method development considerations such as reference methods. As a result, we recommend that patients&apos; perspectives obtained via qualitative methods are taken into consideration in the ongoing methods development in health state descriptions for generic utility instruments. Also, as a more immediate contribution to improving decision making, we propose that a content map of the chosen utility measure with patient-reported domains be provided as standard reporting in utility measurement in order to improve the transparency of the trade-offs in relation to patient relevance and consistency.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/23</link>
                <dc:creator>Clare McGrath</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Diana Rofail</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elizabeth Gargon</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Linda Abetz</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010, 8:23</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-12T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-23</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>23</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-12T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/18">
        <title>Health-related quality of life in diabetes:
The associations of complications with EQ-5D scores
</title>
        <description>Background:
The aim of this study was to describe how diabetes complications influence the health-related quality of life of individuals with diabetes using the individual EQ-5D dimensions and the EQ-5D index.
Methods:
We mailed a questionnaire to 1,000 individuals with diabetes type 1 and 2 in Norway. The questionnaire had questions about socio-demographic characteristics, use of health care, diabetes complications and finally the EQ-5D descriptive system. Logistic regressions were used to explore determinants of responses in the EQ-5D dimensions, and robust linear regression was used to explore determinants of the EQ-5D index.
Results:
In multivariate analyses the strongest determinants of reduced MOBILITY were neuropathy and ischemic heart disease. In the ANXIETY/DEPRESSION dimension of the EQ-5D, &quot;fear of hypoglycaemia&quot; was a strong determinant. For those without complications, the EQ-5D index was 0.90 (type 1 diabetes) and 0.85 (type 2 diabetes). For those with complications, the EQ-5D index was 0.68 (type 1 diabetes) and 0.73 (type 2 diabetes). In the linear regression the factors with the greatest negative impact on the EQ-5D index were ischemic heart disease (type 1 diabetes), stroke (both diabetes types), neuropathy (both diabetes types), and fear of hypoglycaemia (type 2 diabetes).
Conclusions:
The EQ-5D dimensions and the EQ-5D seem capable of capturing the consequences of diabetes-related complications, and such complications may have substantial impact on several dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The strongest determinants of reduced HRQoL in people with diabetes were ischemic heart disease, stroke and neuropathy.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/18</link>
                <dc:creator>Oddvar Solli</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Knut Stavem</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ivar Sonbo Kristiansen</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010, 8:18</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-18</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/24">
        <title>Dimensional structure of the oral health-related quality of life in healthy Spanish workers. </title>
        <description>Background:
Oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) is conceived as a multidimensional construct. Here our aim was to investigate the dimensional structure of OHQoL as measured by the Spanish versions of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires applied simultaneously.
Methods:
We recruited a consecutive sample of 270 healthy Spanish workers visiting the Employment Risk Prevention Centre for a routine medical check-up. OHIP-14 was self-completed by participants but the OIDP was completed in face-to-face interviews. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the underlying dimensions of the OHQoL construct assessed by both instruments. This factorial structure was later confirmed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using several estimators of goodness of fit indices.
Results:
EFA and the CFA identified and respectively confirmed a set of 3 underlying factors in both questionnaires that could be interpreted as functional limitation, pain-discomfort, and psychosocial impacts. The model achieved was seen to fit properly for both instruments, but the factorial structure was clearer for the OIDP.
Conclusions:
The results provide evidence for construct equivalence in the latent factors assessed by both OIDP and OHIP-14, suggesting that OHQoL is a three-dimensional construct. The prevalence of impact on these three factors was coherent between both indicators, pain-discomfort having the highest prevalence, followed by psycho-social impact, and functional limitation.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/24</link>
                <dc:creator>Javier Montero</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Manuel Bravo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maria Purificacion Vicente</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maria Purificacion Galindo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joaquin Lopez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alberto Albaladejo</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010, 8:24</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-24</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>24</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-21T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/63">
        <title>Does the 12-item General Health Questionnaire contain multiple factors and do we need them?</title>
        <description>Background:
The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is widely used as a unidimensional instrument, but factor analyses tended to suggest that it contains two or three factors. Not much is known about the usefulness of the GHQ-12 factors, if they exist, in revealing between-patient differences in clinical states and health-related quality of life.
Methods:
We addressed this issue in a cross-sectional survey of out-patients with psychological disorders in Singapore. The participants (n = 120) completed the GHQ-12, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and the Short-Form 36 Health Survey. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare six previously proposed factor structures for the GHQ-12. Factor scores of the best-fitting model, as well as the overall GHQ-12 score, were assessed in relation to clinical and health-related quality of life variables.
Results:
The 3-factor model proposed by Graetz fitted the data better than a unidimensional model, two 2-factor models, and two other 3-factor models. However, the three factors were strongly correlated. Their values varied in a similar fashion in relation to clinical and health-related quality of life variables.
Conclusions:
The 12-item General Health Questionnaire contains three factors, namely Anxiety and Depression, Social Dysfunction, and Loss of Confidence. Nevertheless, using them separately does not offer many practical advantages in differentiating clinical groups or identifying association with clinical or health-related quality of life variables.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/63</link>
                <dc:creator>Fei Gao</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nan Luo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Julian Thumboo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Calvin Fones</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Shu-Chuen Li</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yin-Bun Cheung</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2004, 2:63</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2004-11-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-2-63</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>63</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2004-11-11T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/21">
        <title>Exploring the validity of estimating EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values from the health assessment questionnaire in patients with inflammatory arthritis</title>
        <description>Background:
Utility scores are used to estimate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), applied in determining the cost-effectiveness of health care interventions. In studies where no preference based measures are collected, indirect methods have been developed to estimate utilities from clinical instruments. The aim of this study was to evaluate a published method of estimating the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6D (SF-6D) (preference based) utility scores from the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) in patients with inflammatory arthritis.
Methods:
Data were used from 3 cohorts of patients with: early inflammatory arthritis (&lt;10 weeks duration); established (&gt;5 years duration) stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA); and RA being treated with anti-TNF therapy. Patients completed the EQ-5D, SF-6D and HAQ at baseline and a follow-up assessment. EQ-5D and SF-6D scores were predicted from the HAQ using a published method. Differences between predicted and observed EQ-5D and SF-6D scores were assessed using the paired t-test and linear regression.
Results:
Predicted utility scores were generally higher than observed scores (range of differences: EQ-5D 0.01 - 0.06; SF-6D 0.05 - 0.10). Change between predicted values of the EQ-5D and SF-6D corresponded well with observed change in patients with established RA. Change in predicted SF-6D scores was, however, less than half of that in observed values (p &lt; 0.001) in patients with more active disease. Predicted EQ-5D scores underestimated change in cohorts of patients with more active disease.
Conclusion:
Predicted utility scores overestimated baseline values but underestimated change. Predicting utility values from the HAQ will therefore likely underestimate the QALYs of interventions, particularly for patients with active disease. We recommend the inclusion of at least one preference based measure in future clinical studies.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/21</link>
                <dc:creator>Mark Harrison</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Lunt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Suzanne Verstappen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kath Watson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nick Bansback</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Deborah Symmons</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010, 8:21</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-21</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>21</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-11T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/60">
        <title>The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): Reliability, Validity, and Utilization</title>
        <description>The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS), created originally by American psychologist John Flanagan in the 1970&apos;s, has been adapted for use in chronic illness groups. This paper reviews the development and psychometric testing of the QOLS. A descriptive review of the published literature was undertaken and findings summarized in the frequently asked questions format. Reliability, content and construct validity testing has been performed on the QOLS and a number of translations have been made. The QOLS has low to moderate correlations with physical health status and disease measures. However, content validity analysis indicates that the instrument measures domains that diverse patient groups with chronic illness define as quality of life. The QOLS is a valid instrument for measuring quality of life across patient groups and cultures and is conceptually distinct from health status or other causal indicators of quality of life.</description>
        <link>http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/60</link>
                <dc:creator>Carol Burckhardt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kathryn Anderson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003, 1:60</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2003-10-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-60</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Health and Quality of Life Outcomes</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1477-7525</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>60</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2003-10-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
