One hundred years ago: How to be happy though a doctor

ObjectivesTo assess the growth of quality of life measures and to examine the availability of measures across specialties.DesignSystematic searches of electronic databases to identify developmental and evaluative work relating to health outcome measures assessed by patients.Results3921 reports that described the development and evaluation of patient assessed measures met the inclusion criteria. Of those that were classifiable, 1819 (46%) were disease or population specific, 865 (22%) were generic, 690 (18%) were dimension specific, 409 (10%) were utility, and 62 (1%) were individualised measures. During 1990-9 the number of new reports of development and evaluation rose from 144 to 650 per year. Reports of disease specific measures rose exponentially. Over 30% of evaluations were in cancer, rheumatology and musculoskeletal disorders, and older people''s health. The generic measures—SF-36, sickness impact profile, and Nottingham health profile—accounted for 612 (16%) reports.ConclusionsIn some specialties there are numerous measures of quality of life and little standardisation. Primary research through the concurrent evaluation of measures and secondary research through structured reviews of measures are prerequisites for standardisation. Recommendations for the selection of patient assessed measures of health outcome are needed.

What is already known on this topic

Quality of life measures are increasingly used for measuring health outcomes in evaluative researchThere is little standardisation in the use of such measures within clinical trials

What this study adds

There has been exponential growth in reports relating to the development and evaluation of quality of life measuresThe number of reports varies considerably according to the health problem