Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 72, No. 2, 2009
Issue release date: August 2009
Section title: Mini Review
Free Access
Horm Res 2009;72:65–73
(DOI:10.1159/000232158)

Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction in Children and Adolescents with Growth Hormone Deficiency or Idiopathic Short Stature – Part 1: A Critical Evaluation of Available Tools

Brütt A.L.a · Sandberg D.E.c · Chaplin J.d, e · Wollmann H.h · Noeker M.b · Kołtowska-Häggström M.f, g · Bullinger M.a
aInstitute for Medical Psychology, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, and bDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; cDepartment of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, Division of Child Behavioral Health, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA; dGothenburg Pediatric Growth Research Center, and eDepartment of Pediatrics, Queen Silvia Children’s Hospital, Växthuset, Gothenburg, fKIMS Medical Outcomes, Pfizer Endocrine Care, Sollentuna, and gDepartment of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; hEBT Ophthalmology/Endocrine, Pfizer Ltd., Tadworth, UK
email Corresponding Author

Abstract

The concept of health-related quality of life (HrQoL) reflects the subjective perception of health and includes aspects of well-being and functioning in physical, emotional, mental and social life domains. Nowadays, HrQoL has become a relevant treatment outcome from epidemiological and clinical perspectives and is also broadly employed in health economic analyses. To assess HrQoL generic as well as condition-specific instruments are used. The former are applicable to a wide range of health conditions and aim at measuring HrQoL across different conditions. The latter focus on capturing the impact of a specific disease. Although HrQoL research in adults is now well-advanced, there are still open questions regarding how to assess HrQoL in pediatric conditions, such as short stature. Eight generic (one chronic-generic) and seven condition-specific (one treatment-specific) instruments used in HrQoL research in short stature of youth are described. Additionally, this mini review identifies a need for further research and indicates potential directions.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


  

Key Words

  • Growth hormone deficiency
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Short stature, idiopathic

 Quality of Life

As stated by the World Health Organization, health is ‘the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ [1]. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) reflects physical, psychological, social, cognitive, functional and behavioral dimensions of well-being and functioning as perceived by the person concerned, in a wide range of conditions between excellent and poor health [2]. The concept of HrQoL is therefore increasingly considered as a relevant ‘patient-reported outcome’ [3]. As a multidimensional construct, HrQoL offers the possibility to focus on different aspects of well-being and functioning and addresses the subjective perceptions of individuals. HrQoL evaluation of short stature (SS) broadens our understanding of the psychosocial impact of this condition, by providing insights into potential impairments of functioning and well-being in comparison to other clinical and non-clinical populations. In addition, the effects of treatment in patient cohorts can serve as an empirical basis for clinical decision making as well as individual tailoring of treatment.

HrQoL reflects the subjective perception of health.

Over the last decades, HrQoL research has expanded from adults to include children and adolescents. Comprehensive reviews of HrQoL measures for pediatric populations are available [2, 4, 5]. Instruments measuring HrQoL can be categorized according to the following levels (fig. 1):

FIG01
Fig. 1. Levels of HrQoL assessment.

– generic level: assessing HrQoL regardless of the presence or absence of health problems;

– chronic generic level: focusing on a chronic condition independent of its specific characteristics;

– condition-specific level: tailored to problems associated with a specific condition;

– treatment-specific level: addressing the patient’s perceptions of care received.

Taking growth hormone deficiency (GHD) as an example, the classification scheme presented above can be illustrated as follows. Generic measures developed for children in the general population fall within the first level. The second level measures the distress associated with a chronic condition. The third level focuses on problems specifically related to SS, regardless of the underlying etiology. And the fourth level evaluates the impact of growth hormone (GH) treatment, in addition to the purported burden stemming from the chronic state of being short.

Evaluations of therapeutic interventions (e.g. clinical trials) benefit from the conjoint use of generic and condition-specific assessment measures. Such an approach facilitates cross-condition comparisons (generic) as well as sensitive assessments of problems associated with a particular condition or state (specific) [4].

Self- and proxy-reported HrQoL instruments are available for children and adolescents. Self-report instruments can be used with children able to read and write (i.e., from age 8 onward), whereas younger children, beginning at age 4, can be interviewed [4, 6]. Research on the relationship between child self-reports and parent proxy reports shows that concordance is higher in physical than in social or emotional domains of HrQoL. Additionally, the correlations depend on the instrument used [7]. Proxy-reported measures are frequently used in very young children, where responses are obtained from caretakers/family members (parent), medical staff or teachers. Although not equivalent, both self- and proxy ratings give information on the HrQoL of children. Since they represent the perspectives of different sources of information, they should be interpreted independently without one being considered the ‘gold standard’. Depending on the measure chosen, HrQoL assessment can be reported as a profile covering different dimensions of HrQoL or as a total score, i.e., as an indicator of global HrQoL [2, 5]. Age-adjusted versions of questionnaires are recommended as they take into account the age-dependent experiences and cognitive development of children and adolescents [6].

HrQoL measures are characterized as generic, condition or treatment-specific, and are available as self- or proxy reports reportable as dimension-specific or global scores.

 HrQoL in Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation

Cost-utility analysis is a special form of cost-effectiveness analysis and requires a primary outcome measured as a gain in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) [8]. This unit of measurement combines information on the length of life (quantity) and the quality of life,where the latter is measured by utilities on a scale ranging from 0 (death) to 1 (full health). The QALY unit is therefore defined as 1 year of life with full health [9]. According to the theoretical underpinnings for QALY advanced by Torrance [10], full health is defined as ‘perfect functioning’.

Utilities are the individual’s preferences for a certain health state assigned under conditions of uncertainty [11] .

Methods used for assessment of utilities are ‘time-trade-off’ (the respondent must answer questions concerning trading of life-years for being totally healthy), ‘standard gamble’ questions (concerning the choice of treatment and treatment costs) and visual analogue scales [12]. These measures lead to the identification of utilities which can then be used for health economic analyses. Derivation of utilities in pediatrics usually requires a parent to act on behalf of the patient [13].

Disease-specific measures are not preference-based and therefore lack information for direct use in cost-utility analysis.

 Treatment Satisfaction

Results from studies with adult participants suggest that patient satisfaction with medical care is a multidimensional construct and is associated with different psychosocial aspects. Different domains of patient satisfaction have been described, depending on the type of service or intervention studied. Patient satisfaction can address an intervention, desired and undesired effects, the surroundings in which treatment is provided, and the staff involved. Current models of healthcare utilization also take into account characteristics of patients (including demographics, attitudes and beliefs) which influence treatment decisions and patient satisfaction. While it is unclear whether children would respond similarly to adults to questions about satisfaction, parents of pediatric patients are likely to report satisfaction or dissatisfaction with medical care based on their perceptions of their child’s HrQoL outcomes as a result of treatment [14]. The importance of patient satisfaction as a factor in medical decision-making in children is rising.

 Instruments for Adults

Instrument development and research findings in adult patients often help shape practice and research in pediatrics.

 HrQoL

A range of generic and disease-specific instruments have been developed and tested in adults with GHD, for example the Quality of Life – Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults (QoL-AGHDA) [15]. This instrument consists of 25 items that can be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, resulting in a maximum score of 25; higher scores represent lower HrQoL. The QoL-AGHDA statements address problems associated with energy level, concentration and memory, irritability and temper, strength and stamina, social isolation, coping with stress as well as physical and mental drive. The Growth Hormone Deficiency Questionnaire [16] examines energy, mood and sleep. The Questions on Life Satisfaction – Hypopituitarism [17] is a disease-specific instrument which takes into account the importance of single aspects of functioning by a weighting scale for each of the 9 items (i.e., body shape, coping, self confidence). The values (calculated by importance and satisfaction) range from –12 to 20, with negative values indicating dissatisfaction and positive values indicating degrees of satisfaction [17]. Both, generic and disease-specific quality of life instruments have been used in studies of adults with GHD [18, 19]. Among the generic variety, the Nottingham Health Profile [20, 21], the Psychological General Well-Being [22] and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) [23,24,25] have frequently been employed.

 Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations

Both time-trade-off and standard gamble have been used in adults to assess patient preferences, e.g. Rekers-Mombarg et al. [24]. Busschbach et al. [25] assessed the impact of SS on HrQoL using time-trade-off.

 Patient Satisfaction

Several studies have been conducted on the impact of long-term GH replacement therapy on patient satisfaction, HrQoL, and healthcare utilization [26,27,28]. Saller et al. [26] examined a large cohort (n = 503) of adult patients with GHD originating from 3 European countries. Patient satisfaction with GH treatment was rated by patients using the Likert rating scale, and physical activity was assessed on the visual analogue scale. Significant improvements observed during the first year of treatment were maintained during the second year [26]. The main interest of studies in adults with GHD is the putative benefits of low-dose GH replacement on metabolism (e.g. lean to fat body mass), energy level, and general well-being.

Quality of life outcomes in treated adults are believed to be a consequence of the metabolic effects of GH rather than being mediated by GH effects on growth/height attained earlier in the treatment cycle. In contrast, research in children and adolescents focuses, in particular, on the potential effects of GH-promoted growth on subjective well-being and functioning.

 Instruments for Children

A number of generic HrQoL instruments for use in children are available. The following generic and condition-specific measures were included in studies of youths with growth disorders (table 1).

TAB01
Table 1. Generic, chronic generic, condition-specific and treatment-specific QoL questionnaires for children

The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory [29] is a generic measure developed in the USA. The 23-item questionnaire, available in self- and parent-reported versions, measures HrQoL of healthy and ill children, aged 2–18 years. The self-report version is designed for children above 5 years. In addition to a total score, scale scores are available for physical, emotional, social and school-related domains. The instrument is psychometrically robust and translations exist in multiple languages.

Another widely used instrument developed in the US and applied to children with SS is the Child Health Questionnaire [30]. Self-and proxy-reported forms for children 5–18 years old are available. Its 87 items cover 14 domains which can be aggregated into physical and psychological sum scores. Construct and convergent validity as well as sensitivity to change have been demonstrated.

The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research Academic Medical Centre created the child quality-of-life questionnaire (TACQOL). Available in self- and proxy-reported versions for youths 5–15 years old, the TACQOL’s 56 items cover 7 dimensions. Questionnaire reliability as well as construct and convergent validity have been established [31]. A SS-specific version of this questionnaire also exists and is described below.

Pilpel et al. [32] developed a questionnaire for use in a study on GH treatment. It did not include items specifically related to SS. Instead, the 45-item measure assessed the dimensions ‘academic achievement level’, ‘leisure activities’, ‘physical self-esteem’, ‘emotional self-esteem’, and ‘relationships with peers and family members’; all domains hypothesized to be negatively affected by SS. The rating scale ranges from 1 to 4, each value defined by verbal anchors. For analysis, scores are transformed, such that ‘4’ and ‘1’ represent the most positive and negative views of HrQoL, respectively. The dimension score is calculated as the mean of items. Data on psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire are not available.

The DucatQoL consists of 25 items, scored on a 5-point scale. The questionnaire assesses home, physical, emotional and social functioning, and provides a total score [33].

The French instrument Vécu et Santé Perçue de l’Adolescent Malade [34] has been developed for measuring self-reported HrQoL in chronically ill adolescents aged 11–15. The 37 items assess 10 dimensions and can be further summarized into a global index. Reliability as well as construct and convergent validity have been assessed.

Two instruments not explicitly measuring HrQoL, but often administered to children with SS, are the Self- Perception Profile [35] and the Child Behavior Checklist [36].

There are 5 condition-specific HrQoL questionnaires specifically designed for SS. In addition, 2 proxy-report questionnaires are available.

 Self-Report Questionnaires

(1) Leiberman et al. [37] developed a 53-item questionnaire to assess coping and satisfaction with GH treatment. The questionnaire covers the following domains: emotional self-esteem, physical self-esteem, perceptions of treatment and medical outcome, relationships with peers, relationships with family members, compliance with treatment regimen, satisfaction with accessibility of treatment, with doctor-patient relationship, and satisfaction with outcome of treatment. In addition, a total score can be calculated. The domains were created a priori according to content. The reliability of the scale domains (assessed by Cronbach’s α) ranged from 0.7 to 0.9 for the sample (n = 96) studied. No further information regarding psychometric properties were provided.

(2) Wiklund et al. [38] developed a measure consisting of 39 bipolar adjectives (i.e., happy-sad, strong-weak, lazy-energetic) which were selected and tested for understanding in a group of teachers and pupils. Respondents rate themselves using a visual analogue scale (100 mm in length) with the endpoints defined by words denoting the extreme opposites of the attribute to be measured. Psychometric testing was performed using a sample of 342 healthy children of 3 different age groups (9, 11 and 13 years) as well as a sample of 65 short children (mean ± SD = 12 ± 1.5 years) referred to a growth research center (Gothenburg, Sweden). The 6, factor-analytically derived domains include ‘alertness’, ‘self-esteem’, ‘mood’, ‘elation’, ‘stability’ and ‘vitality’. Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) for the different dimensions ranged from 0.63 to 0.81. Inter-correlations among the 6 factors were modest (r = 0.17–0.53) indicating that relatively unique information was being captured. Construct validity was estimated with a Swedish self-perception questionnaire [39]. The strongest relationships were found in domains related to emotion.

(3) Another condition-specific, self-report questionnaire for SS children is the Idiopathic Short Stature QoL questionnaire. It focuses on the domain of vitality, because GH treatment can improve energy levels in children with GHD [40]. Psychometric properties are reported with Cronbach’s α = 0.71 (parent report) and α = 0.66 (child report). No further information on the questionnaire or its psychometrics is available.

(4) The TACQOL-S [41] is a condition-specific questionnaire designed in the Netherlands to measure the impact of SS on HrQoL for children aged 5–15 years. The TACQOL-S is one module of the generic TACQOL. The identification of items was based on clinical experience and interviews with children with SS. The 37-item TACQOL-S is a self-report questionnaire comprising 5 scales, including physical abilities (e.g. ‘Did you experience the tables at school as being too high?’), vitality (e.g. ‘Have you been getting tired quickly?’), contact with peers (e.g. ‘Have other children been bullying you?’), contact with adults (e.g. ‘Were adults surprised when they heard your age?’), and body image (e.g. ‘Would you like to look different?’). The timeframe for all items is the last few weeks. Internal consistency of the TACQOL-S scales was studied in a SS group (n = 63) and Cronbach’s α were above 0.70, except for vitality (α = 0.57). This questionnaire has yet to be used in studies assessing the HrQoL of children with GHD or idiopathic SS.

(5) The Issues Related to Growth Problem and Height Questionnaire (IRGPH) [42 ] collects information concerning factors which the research literature on SS and the clinical experiences of the investigators suggested are important in modulating the psychosocial impact of SS. The IRGPH was designed for clinic-referred samples, comprises both open-ended and closed questions, and is suitable for administration to patients 8 years or older. A selection of domains assessed include: current concerns/worries about height, satisfaction with height and other aspects of appearance, advantages/disadvantages of current height, self-disclosure regarding visit to pediatric endocrinologist, experiences of stigmatization and juvenilization related to SS, self-perceptions of competence in physical activities/gym, and reputation in the school setting (e.g. class clown, teacher’s pet) [43]. The psychometric properties of the IRGPH have not been reported.

 Treatment-Specific Questionnaire

A growth hormone injection questionnaire (GHIQ) for adolescents has also been developed [44]. It covers the dimensions ‘feelings’ and ‘injection issues’, and includes a total score. Psychometric properties have been tested in the UK and USA on 172 adolescents receiving GH treatment. Internal consistencies for the ‘feelings’, ‘injection issues’ and total scores are α = 0.68, α = 0.78 and α = 0.77, respectively. A retest of 149 subjects showed a reliability of α = 0.72. Psychometric testing also revealed weak correlations with external validation measures; accordingly, the GHIQ is assessing a relatively independent construct.

 Proxy Questionnaires

(1) The Short Stature in Children – A Questionnaire for Parents is a 34-item instrument covering the domains ‘suffering’, ‘future anxieties’, ‘behavioral problems’ and ‘coping efforts’. Items are formulated as whole sentences (e.g. ‘On the whole, our child suffers from their short stature’, ‘At adult age, it would be more difficult for our child to build up a partnership’, ‘Due to short stature, our child experiences additional problems, but by doing so also matures, in a positive sense, to an extraordinary personality’). Respondents rate the degree of applicability of the statement to their child’s situation on a 4-point scale: ‘not at all’, ‘slightly’, ‘more’ or ‘very much’). Psychometric properties were tested within a sample of 442 parents of short children recruited through outpatient clinics and patient support groups in Germany. Internal consistency for the 4 scales ranged between α = 0.60 (coping efforts) and α = 0.91 (future anxieties). Construct validity was determined by expert ratings (physicians, affected families) and divergent validity was tested (parents of children with GHD vs. achondroplasia), although differences were not as pronounced as proposed [45].

(2) The IRGPH (see above) is also available in a parent-report version for those with children of 6 years or older [41]. In addition to the domains common to both the parent and self-report versions, the proxy measure assesses the reason(s) for referral to a pediatric endocrinologist (concerns over physical health or psychological development), parent satisfaction with child’s height and perception of child’s satisfaction, child’s participation in individual or team sports, years spent in current school and anticipated move to next school, perception of age-appropriateness of child’s social maturity, presence of a younger, taller sibling, and number of geographic relocations made by the family since the child’s birth [42].

 Utility-Based Measures

The 17D measure [46] was specifically developed for assessing a utility index for children aged 7–11 years, both for healthy and chronically ill children. It covers 17 domains of HrQoL. The adult instrument EQ-5D has been used in several studies in children for the measurement of health status. Furthermore, a child-friendly version is in preparation [47]. In contrast, the Health Utility Index Mark 2 System is an instrument especially developed for children and adolescents. This 7-item instrument has demonstrated test-retest reliability and construct validity [48]. However, none of these instruments have been applied to youths with isolated GHD or idiopathic SS.

Patient satisfaction questionnaires designed specifically for youths with idiopathic SS or GHD have yet to be developed.

In addition to generic HrQoL instruments, condition-specific and treatment-specific instruments for children with SS have been developed. Utility-based measures have not yet been used in pediatric populations with growth disorders.

 Discussion

This mini review identified 5 pediatric, condition-specific HrQoL measures relevant to youths with SS. Each method has strengths and weaknesses; however, none provide adequate coverage of all the domains potentially influenced by SS, whether as an isolated physical characteristic (e.g. idiopathic SS), or as a consequence of an underlying medical condition (e.g. GHD). Following the strategy employed in psychosocial assessment that relies on incorporating information collected from multiple sources, the optimal condition-specific HrQoL measure should be available in both self-and parent-report versions [49]. Further, desirable characteristics of a HrQoL instrument for children include cross-cultural comparability, a modular approach with generic and condition-specific modules, and an emphasis on positive health-promoting facets of HrQoL [50]. This new instrument would assist clinicians in the formulation of medical and psychosocial treatments and, in parallel to the measurement of height and growth, would provide the means of assessing the HrQoL response to medical and/or psychosocial interventions. A relatively neglected area of subjective experience relevant to GH treatment is patient and family perceptions of the child’s height (versus measured height) [51] and their satisfaction with their height [40]. Perceptions of and satisfaction with height may be strongly associated with HrQoL outcomes in young persons with SS [52].

The age at which children can begin to reliably inform others of their subjective HrQoL is a topic of considerable inquiry. While children as young as 4 years can provide valuable information about their emotional reactions and behaviors, the challenges of creating reliable and valid instruments for this very young age group are substantial [53, 54]. Among the challenges are children’s vocabulary and cognitive limitations which may reduce their comprehension of complex ideas. For this reason, the value of self-report condition-specific measures in young children is debatable. However, condition-generic measures such as those developed in the DISABKIDS study or generic measures such as the KINDL-R [55] or the Kidscreen may be used.

Utilizing peers as a source of information about the child’s psychosocial adaptation is another source of information deserving serious consideration. The problems purported to stem from SS are believed to be linked to negative social interactions in the peer group, and yet there exists only limited research that has directly examined peer relations among youths with SS [56, 57].

To promote its utility in both clinical care and research, the development of a new instrument would need to meet stringent criteria for HrQoL questionnaire construction, guidelines for which are available in the literature [58]. For cross-cultural purposes, questionnaire development in participating countries should include: (1) focus groups with children and parents; (2) a structured item writing process; (3) cognitive debriefing and pilot testing; (4) field testing with analysis of psychometric properties, including cross-cultural differences, and (5) norming. Examples of such cross-cultural measures are the DISABKIDS [59] and the Kidscreen [60] questionnaires for children. Validation of a newly developed measure for SS would include examination of the conjoint influences of clinical, sociodemographic and psychosocial determinants on variance in HrQoL ratings. Finally, to maximize its utility, it would need to be demonstrated that use of this new measure is feasible in treatment settings and acceptable to both clinicians and families.

 Acknowledgment

This literature review was supported by a grant to M.B. from Pfizer, Inc.


References

  1. The Disabkids Group Europe: The Disabkids: Questionnaires for Children with Chronic Conditions. Lengerich, Papst Science Publishers, 2006.
  2. The Kidscreen Group Europe: The Kidscreen: Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Lengerich, Papst Science Publishers, 2006.
  3. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R: How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument; in Spilker B (ed): Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996, pp 49–56.
  4. Sandberg DE, Bukowski WM, Fung CM, Noll RB: Height and social adjustment: are extremes a cause for concern and action? Pediatrics 2004;114:744–750.
  5. Gilmour J, Skuse D: Short stature: the role of intelligence in psychosocial adjustment. Arch Dis Child 1996;75:25–31.
  6. Ravens-Sieberer U, Bullinger M: Assessing health-related quality of life in chronically ill children with the German KINDL: first psychometric and content analytical results. Qual Life Res 1998;7:399–407.
  7. Stone W, Lemanek KL: Developmental issues in children’s self-reports; in La Greca AM (ed): Through the Eyes of the Child: Obtaining Self-Reports from Children and Adolescents. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1990.
  8. La Greca AM (ed): Through the Eyes of the Child: Obtaining Self-Reports from Children and Adolescents. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1990, pp 3–17.
  9. Hull KL, Harvey S: Growth hormone therapy and Quality of Life: possibilities, pitfalls and mechanisms. J Endocrinol 2003;179:311–333.
  10. Hunt L, Hazen RA, Sandberg DE: Perceived versus measured height: which is the stronger predictor of psychosocial functioning? Horm Res 2000;53:129–138.
  11. WHO Mental Health Division: Measurement of quality of life in children. Geneva, WHO, 1994.
  12. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT: Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychol Bull 1987;101:213–232.
  13. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW: Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7:490–502.
  14. Hennessy S, Kind P: Measuring health status in children: developing and testing a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Proc 19th Meet EuroQol Group 2002, pp 291–310.
  15. Apajasalo M, Rautonen J, Holmberg C, Sinkkonen J, Aalberg V, Pihko H, Silmes MA, Kaitila I, Mäkelä A, Erkkilä K, Sintonen H: Quality of life in pre-adolescence: a 17-dimensional health-related quality of life measure (17D). Qual Life Res 1996;5:532–538.
  16. Haverkamp F, Noeker M: Short stature in children: a questionnaire for parents. A new instrument for growth disorder-specific psychosocial adaptation in children. Qual Life Res 1998;7:447–455.
  17. Cramer JA, Simeoni MC, Robitail S, Auquier P, Brasseur P, Beresniak A: Development of a growth hormone injection questionnaire for adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2004;34:27–29.
  18. Sandberg DE, Michael P: Psychosocial stresses related to short stature: does their presence imply psychiatric dysfunction? In Drotar D (ed): Assessing Pediatric Health-Related Quality of Life and Functional Status: Implications for Research. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998, pp 287–312.
  19. Sandberg DE, Mazur TA: Issues related to growth problem and height questionnaire: parent and patient versions. Unpubl. questionnaire, 1990.
  20. Bannink EM, van Pareren YK, Theunissen NC, Raat H, Mulder PG, Hokken-Koelega AC: Quality of life in adolescents born small for gestational age: does growth hormone make a difference? Horm Res 2005;64:166–174.
  21. Theunissen NC, Kamp GA, Koopman HM, Zwinderman KA, Vogels T, Wit JM: Quality of life and self-esteem in children treated for idiopathic short stature. J Pediatr 2002;140:507–515.
  22. Ouvinen-Birgerstam P: Jag tycker jag är. Manual. Stockholm, Psyckologiförlaget, 1985.
  23. Wiklund I, Wirén L, Erling A, Karlberg J, Albertsson-Wikland K: A new self-assessment questionnaire to measure well-being in children, particularly those of short stature. Qual Life Res 1994;3:449–455.
  24. Leiberman E, Pilpel D, Carel CA, Levi E, Zadik Z: Coping and satisfaction with growth hormone treatment among short-stature children. Horm Res 1993;40:128–135.
  25. Achenbach TM: Program Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior/4–18 Profile. Burlington, Queen City Printers, 1991.
  26. Harter S: Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, University of Denver, 1985.
  27. Simeoni MC, Auquier P, Antoniotti S, Sapin C, Marco CLS: Validation of a French health-related quality of life instrument for adolescents: the VSP-A. Qual Life Res 2000;9:393–403.
  28. Koopman HM, Theunissen NCM, Vogels AGC, Zwinderman AH, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Wit JM: Health-related quality of life of children with a chronic illness: parent versus child report. Gedrag Gezondheit 1999;27:118–125.
  29. Pilpel D, Leiberman E, Zadik Z, Carel CA: Effect of growth hormone treatment on quality of life of short-stature children. Horm Res 1995;44:1–5.
  30. Verrips GH, Vogels AGC, Koopman HM, Theunissen NCM, Kamphuis RP, Wit JM, Verloove-Vanhorick SP: Measuring health-related quality of life in a child population. Eur J Public Health 1999;9:188–193.

    External Resources

  31. Landgraf JM, Abetz, L, Ware JE: Child Health Questionnaire: a user’s manual. Boston, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1996.
  32. Varni JW, Seid, M, Rode CA: The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care 1999;37:126–139.
  33. Svensson J, Mattsson A, Rosén T, Wirén L, Johansson G, Bengtsson BÅ, Kołtowska-Häggström M: Three years of growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy in GH-deficient adults: effects on quality of life, patient-reported outcomes and healthcare consumption. Growth Horm IGF Res 2004;4:207–215.

    External Resources

  34. Hernberg-Ståhl E, Luger A, Abs R, Bengtsson BÅ, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Wilton P, Westberg B, Monson JP: Healthcare consumption decreases in parallel with improvements in quality of life during GH replacement in hypopituitary adults with GH deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:5277–5281.
  35. Saller B, Mattsson AF, Kann PH, Koppeschaar HP, Svensson J, Pompen M, Koltowska-Häggström M; German KIMS investigators; Dutch KIMS investigators; Swedish KIMS investigators: Healthcare utilization, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes during two years of GH replacement therapy in GH-deficient adults-comparison between Sweden, The Netherlands and Germany. Eur J Endocrinol 2006;154:843–850.
  36. Busschbach JJ, Rikken B, Grobbee DE, De Charro FT, Wit JM: Quality of life in short adults. Horm Res 1998;49:32–38.
  37. Rekers-Mombarg LT, Busschbach JJ, Massa GG, Dicke J, Wit JM: Quality of life of young adults with idiopathic short stature: effect of growth hormone treatment. Dutch Growth Hormone Working Group. Acta Paediatr 1998;87:865–870.
  38. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.
  39. Dupuy HJ: The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index; in Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CF, Elinson J (eds): Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. New York, Le Jacq Publishing, 1984, pp 170–183.
  40. Burman P, Broman JE, Hetta J, Wiklund I, Erfurth EM, Hagg E, Karlsson FA: Quality of life in adults with growth hormone (GH) deficiency: response to treatment with recombinant human GH in a placebo-controlled 21-month trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995;80:3585–3590.
  41. Hunt SM, McEwen J: The development of a subjective health indicator. Sociol Health Illn 1980;2:231–246.
  42. Koltowska-Haggstrom M, Hennessy S, Mattsson AF, Monson JP, Kind P: Quality of life assessment of growth hormone deficiency in adults (QoL-AGHDA): comparison of normative reference data for the general population of England and Wales with results for adult hypopituitary patients with growth hormone deficiency. Horm Res 2005;64:46–54.
  43. McGauley GA: Quality of life assessment before and after growth hormone treatment in adults with growth hormone deficiency. Acta Paediatr Scand 1989;356(suppl):70–74.

    External Resources

  44. Herschbach P, Henrich G, Strasburger CJ, Feldmeiner H, Marin F, Attanasio AM, Blum WF: Development and psychometric properties of a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for adult patients with growth hormone deficiency. Eur J Endocrinol 2001;145:255–265.
  45. Cuneo RC, Judd S, Wallace JD, Perry-Keene D, Burger H, Lim-Tio S, Strauss B, Stockigt J, Topliss D, Alford F, Hew L, Bode H, Conway A, Handelsman D, Dunn S, Boyages S, Cheung NW, Hurley D: The Australian Multicenter Trial of Growth Hormone (GH) Treatment in GH-Deficient Adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;83:107–116.
  46. McKenna SP, Doward LC, Alonso J, Kohlmann T, Niero M, Prieto L, Wiren L: The QoL-AGHDA: an instrument for the assessment of quality of life in adults with growth hormone deficiency. Qual Life Res 1999;8:373–383.
  47. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Lane MM: Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric clinical practice: an appraisal and precept for future research and application. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:34.
  48. Finkelstein BS, Singh J, Silvers JB, Marrero U, Neuhauser D, Cuttler L: Patient attitudes and preferences regarding treatment: GH therapy for childhood short stature. Horm Res 1999;51(suppl 1):67–72.
  49. Pliskin JS: Towards better decision making in growth hormone therapy. Horm Res 1999;51(suppl 1):30–35.
  50. Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality-adjusted survival; in Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 2000, pp 248–265.
  51. Torrance GW: Health status index models: a unified mathematical view. Management Science 1976;22:990–1001.

    External Resources

  52. Torrance GW: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987;40:593–600.
  53. Coast J: Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ 2004;329:1233–1236.
  54. Eiser C, Morse R: Can parents rate their child’s health related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Qual of Life Res 2001;10:347–357.
  55. Bullinger M, Schmidt S, Petersen C, Ravens-Sieberer U: Quality of life-evaluation criteria for children with chronic conditions in medical care. J Public Health 2006;14:343–355.

    External Resources

  56. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, Wetzel R, Nickel J, Bullinger M: Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1199–1220.
  57. Clarke SA, Eiser C: The measurement of health-related quality of life (QOL) in paediatric clinical trials: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:66.
  58. US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:79. http://www. hqlo.com/content/pdf/1477-7525-4-79.pdf (accessed March 23, 2008).
  59. Bullinger M: Quality of life: definition, conceptualization and implications: a methodologists view. Theor Surg 1991;6:143–148.
  60. World Health Organization: Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva, WHO, 1948.

  

Author Contacts

Anna Levke Brütt
Institute for Medical Psychology
DE–20246 Hamburg (Germany)
Tel. +49 40 7410 57313, Fax +49 40 7410 54940
E-Mail a.bruett@uke.uni-hamburg.de

  

Article Information

Received: October 28, 2008
Accepted: June 15, 2009
Published online: August 18, 2009
Number of Print Pages : 9
Number of Figures : 1, Number of Tables : 1, Number of References : 60

  

Publication Details

Hormone Research (From Developmental Endocrinology to Clinical Research)

Vol. 72, No. 2, Year 2009 (Cover Date: August 2009)

Journal Editor: Czernichow P. (Paris)
ISSN: 0301-0163 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0046 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HRE


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

Abstract

The concept of health-related quality of life (HrQoL) reflects the subjective perception of health and includes aspects of well-being and functioning in physical, emotional, mental and social life domains. Nowadays, HrQoL has become a relevant treatment outcome from epidemiological and clinical perspectives and is also broadly employed in health economic analyses. To assess HrQoL generic as well as condition-specific instruments are used. The former are applicable to a wide range of health conditions and aim at measuring HrQoL across different conditions. The latter focus on capturing the impact of a specific disease. Although HrQoL research in adults is now well-advanced, there are still open questions regarding how to assess HrQoL in pediatric conditions, such as short stature. Eight generic (one chronic-generic) and seven condition-specific (one treatment-specific) instruments used in HrQoL research in short stature of youth are described. Additionally, this mini review identifies a need for further research and indicates potential directions.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


  

Author Contacts

Anna Levke Brütt
Institute for Medical Psychology
DE–20246 Hamburg (Germany)
Tel. +49 40 7410 57313, Fax +49 40 7410 54940
E-Mail a.bruett@uke.uni-hamburg.de

  

Article Information

Received: October 28, 2008
Accepted: June 15, 2009
Published online: August 18, 2009
Number of Print Pages : 9
Number of Figures : 1, Number of Tables : 1, Number of References : 60

  

Publication Details

Hormone Research (From Developmental Endocrinology to Clinical Research)

Vol. 72, No. 2, Year 2009 (Cover Date: August 2009)

Journal Editor: Czernichow P. (Paris)
ISSN: 0301-0163 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0046 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HRE


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Mini Review

Received: 8/13/2008
Accepted: 6/15/2009
Published online: 8/18/2009
Issue release date: August 2009

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1663-2818 (Print)
eISSN: 1663-2826 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HRP


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. The Disabkids Group Europe: The Disabkids: Questionnaires for Children with Chronic Conditions. Lengerich, Papst Science Publishers, 2006.
  2. The Kidscreen Group Europe: The Kidscreen: Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Lengerich, Papst Science Publishers, 2006.
  3. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R: How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument; in Spilker B (ed): Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996, pp 49–56.
  4. Sandberg DE, Bukowski WM, Fung CM, Noll RB: Height and social adjustment: are extremes a cause for concern and action? Pediatrics 2004;114:744–750.
  5. Gilmour J, Skuse D: Short stature: the role of intelligence in psychosocial adjustment. Arch Dis Child 1996;75:25–31.
  6. Ravens-Sieberer U, Bullinger M: Assessing health-related quality of life in chronically ill children with the German KINDL: first psychometric and content analytical results. Qual Life Res 1998;7:399–407.
  7. Stone W, Lemanek KL: Developmental issues in children’s self-reports; in La Greca AM (ed): Through the Eyes of the Child: Obtaining Self-Reports from Children and Adolescents. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1990.
  8. La Greca AM (ed): Through the Eyes of the Child: Obtaining Self-Reports from Children and Adolescents. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1990, pp 3–17.
  9. Hull KL, Harvey S: Growth hormone therapy and Quality of Life: possibilities, pitfalls and mechanisms. J Endocrinol 2003;179:311–333.
  10. Hunt L, Hazen RA, Sandberg DE: Perceived versus measured height: which is the stronger predictor of psychosocial functioning? Horm Res 2000;53:129–138.
  11. WHO Mental Health Division: Measurement of quality of life in children. Geneva, WHO, 1994.
  12. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT: Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychol Bull 1987;101:213–232.
  13. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW: Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7:490–502.
  14. Hennessy S, Kind P: Measuring health status in children: developing and testing a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Proc 19th Meet EuroQol Group 2002, pp 291–310.
  15. Apajasalo M, Rautonen J, Holmberg C, Sinkkonen J, Aalberg V, Pihko H, Silmes MA, Kaitila I, Mäkelä A, Erkkilä K, Sintonen H: Quality of life in pre-adolescence: a 17-dimensional health-related quality of life measure (17D). Qual Life Res 1996;5:532–538.
  16. Haverkamp F, Noeker M: Short stature in children: a questionnaire for parents. A new instrument for growth disorder-specific psychosocial adaptation in children. Qual Life Res 1998;7:447–455.
  17. Cramer JA, Simeoni MC, Robitail S, Auquier P, Brasseur P, Beresniak A: Development of a growth hormone injection questionnaire for adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2004;34:27–29.
  18. Sandberg DE, Michael P: Psychosocial stresses related to short stature: does their presence imply psychiatric dysfunction? In Drotar D (ed): Assessing Pediatric Health-Related Quality of Life and Functional Status: Implications for Research. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998, pp 287–312.
  19. Sandberg DE, Mazur TA: Issues related to growth problem and height questionnaire: parent and patient versions. Unpubl. questionnaire, 1990.
  20. Bannink EM, van Pareren YK, Theunissen NC, Raat H, Mulder PG, Hokken-Koelega AC: Quality of life in adolescents born small for gestational age: does growth hormone make a difference? Horm Res 2005;64:166–174.
  21. Theunissen NC, Kamp GA, Koopman HM, Zwinderman KA, Vogels T, Wit JM: Quality of life and self-esteem in children treated for idiopathic short stature. J Pediatr 2002;140:507–515.
  22. Ouvinen-Birgerstam P: Jag tycker jag är. Manual. Stockholm, Psyckologiförlaget, 1985.
  23. Wiklund I, Wirén L, Erling A, Karlberg J, Albertsson-Wikland K: A new self-assessment questionnaire to measure well-being in children, particularly those of short stature. Qual Life Res 1994;3:449–455.
  24. Leiberman E, Pilpel D, Carel CA, Levi E, Zadik Z: Coping and satisfaction with growth hormone treatment among short-stature children. Horm Res 1993;40:128–135.
  25. Achenbach TM: Program Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior/4–18 Profile. Burlington, Queen City Printers, 1991.
  26. Harter S: Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, University of Denver, 1985.
  27. Simeoni MC, Auquier P, Antoniotti S, Sapin C, Marco CLS: Validation of a French health-related quality of life instrument for adolescents: the VSP-A. Qual Life Res 2000;9:393–403.
  28. Koopman HM, Theunissen NCM, Vogels AGC, Zwinderman AH, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Wit JM: Health-related quality of life of children with a chronic illness: parent versus child report. Gedrag Gezondheit 1999;27:118–125.
  29. Pilpel D, Leiberman E, Zadik Z, Carel CA: Effect of growth hormone treatment on quality of life of short-stature children. Horm Res 1995;44:1–5.
  30. Verrips GH, Vogels AGC, Koopman HM, Theunissen NCM, Kamphuis RP, Wit JM, Verloove-Vanhorick SP: Measuring health-related quality of life in a child population. Eur J Public Health 1999;9:188–193.

    External Resources

  31. Landgraf JM, Abetz, L, Ware JE: Child Health Questionnaire: a user’s manual. Boston, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1996.
  32. Varni JW, Seid, M, Rode CA: The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care 1999;37:126–139.
  33. Svensson J, Mattsson A, Rosén T, Wirén L, Johansson G, Bengtsson BÅ, Kołtowska-Häggström M: Three years of growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy in GH-deficient adults: effects on quality of life, patient-reported outcomes and healthcare consumption. Growth Horm IGF Res 2004;4:207–215.

    External Resources

  34. Hernberg-Ståhl E, Luger A, Abs R, Bengtsson BÅ, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Wilton P, Westberg B, Monson JP: Healthcare consumption decreases in parallel with improvements in quality of life during GH replacement in hypopituitary adults with GH deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:5277–5281.
  35. Saller B, Mattsson AF, Kann PH, Koppeschaar HP, Svensson J, Pompen M, Koltowska-Häggström M; German KIMS investigators; Dutch KIMS investigators; Swedish KIMS investigators: Healthcare utilization, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes during two years of GH replacement therapy in GH-deficient adults-comparison between Sweden, The Netherlands and Germany. Eur J Endocrinol 2006;154:843–850.
  36. Busschbach JJ, Rikken B, Grobbee DE, De Charro FT, Wit JM: Quality of life in short adults. Horm Res 1998;49:32–38.
  37. Rekers-Mombarg LT, Busschbach JJ, Massa GG, Dicke J, Wit JM: Quality of life of young adults with idiopathic short stature: effect of growth hormone treatment. Dutch Growth Hormone Working Group. Acta Paediatr 1998;87:865–870.
  38. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.
  39. Dupuy HJ: The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index; in Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CF, Elinson J (eds): Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. New York, Le Jacq Publishing, 1984, pp 170–183.
  40. Burman P, Broman JE, Hetta J, Wiklund I, Erfurth EM, Hagg E, Karlsson FA: Quality of life in adults with growth hormone (GH) deficiency: response to treatment with recombinant human GH in a placebo-controlled 21-month trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995;80:3585–3590.
  41. Hunt SM, McEwen J: The development of a subjective health indicator. Sociol Health Illn 1980;2:231–246.
  42. Koltowska-Haggstrom M, Hennessy S, Mattsson AF, Monson JP, Kind P: Quality of life assessment of growth hormone deficiency in adults (QoL-AGHDA): comparison of normative reference data for the general population of England and Wales with results for adult hypopituitary patients with growth hormone deficiency. Horm Res 2005;64:46–54.
  43. McGauley GA: Quality of life assessment before and after growth hormone treatment in adults with growth hormone deficiency. Acta Paediatr Scand 1989;356(suppl):70–74.

    External Resources

  44. Herschbach P, Henrich G, Strasburger CJ, Feldmeiner H, Marin F, Attanasio AM, Blum WF: Development and psychometric properties of a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for adult patients with growth hormone deficiency. Eur J Endocrinol 2001;145:255–265.
  45. Cuneo RC, Judd S, Wallace JD, Perry-Keene D, Burger H, Lim-Tio S, Strauss B, Stockigt J, Topliss D, Alford F, Hew L, Bode H, Conway A, Handelsman D, Dunn S, Boyages S, Cheung NW, Hurley D: The Australian Multicenter Trial of Growth Hormone (GH) Treatment in GH-Deficient Adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;83:107–116.
  46. McKenna SP, Doward LC, Alonso J, Kohlmann T, Niero M, Prieto L, Wiren L: The QoL-AGHDA: an instrument for the assessment of quality of life in adults with growth hormone deficiency. Qual Life Res 1999;8:373–383.
  47. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Lane MM: Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric clinical practice: an appraisal and precept for future research and application. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:34.
  48. Finkelstein BS, Singh J, Silvers JB, Marrero U, Neuhauser D, Cuttler L: Patient attitudes and preferences regarding treatment: GH therapy for childhood short stature. Horm Res 1999;51(suppl 1):67–72.
  49. Pliskin JS: Towards better decision making in growth hormone therapy. Horm Res 1999;51(suppl 1):30–35.
  50. Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality-adjusted survival; in Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 2000, pp 248–265.
  51. Torrance GW: Health status index models: a unified mathematical view. Management Science 1976;22:990–1001.

    External Resources

  52. Torrance GW: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987;40:593–600.
  53. Coast J: Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ 2004;329:1233–1236.
  54. Eiser C, Morse R: Can parents rate their child’s health related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Qual of Life Res 2001;10:347–357.
  55. Bullinger M, Schmidt S, Petersen C, Ravens-Sieberer U: Quality of life-evaluation criteria for children with chronic conditions in medical care. J Public Health 2006;14:343–355.

    External Resources

  56. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, Wetzel R, Nickel J, Bullinger M: Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1199–1220.
  57. Clarke SA, Eiser C: The measurement of health-related quality of life (QOL) in paediatric clinical trials: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:66.
  58. US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:79. http://www. hqlo.com/content/pdf/1477-7525-4-79.pdf (accessed March 23, 2008).
  59. Bullinger M: Quality of life: definition, conceptualization and implications: a methodologists view. Theor Surg 1991;6:143–148.
  60. World Health Organization: Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva, WHO, 1948.