[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 15, 1995

The Quality of Quality-of-Life Measurements

Author Affiliations

for the International Breast Cancer Study Group Bern, Switzerland

JAMA. 1995;273(11):843. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520350025013

To the Editor.  —In their critical and controversial appraisal of quality-of-life measurements, Drs Gill and Feinstein1 recommend the use of global ratings by patients, because this approach can "reflect the disparate values and preferences of individual patients." This argument is particularly important in controlled clinical trials with quality-of-life end points for two reasons. Values and preferences may not just be different among individuals but also change within individuals over time and across different situations (eg, whether they are on or off treatment),2 and values and preferences may also differ across the multiple cultural and social class groups often involved in clinical trials.3,4In a comparative clinical trial, of primary interest is the difference in quality of life between treatments. Quality of life is usually not comprehensively described; rather, treatments are compared with regard to their impact on patients' quality of life. A global rating may be sensitive

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview