the evaluation of individual quality of life (SEIQoL). In addition, the authors wanted to
compare the results using SEIQoL with those of more traditional assessment tools: ‘We
wanted to know whether SEIQoL could answer the question “What does the patient
think?”.’
Methodology
Subjects Consecutive patients attending a hospital in Dublin for osteoarthritis of
the hip were asked to participate. These were matched to control subjects from local
general practices in terms of age, sex and class. The study consisted of 20 subjects, who
underwent hip replacement operation, and 20 controls.
Design The study used a repeated measures design with measures completed before
(baseline) and after (six-month follow-up) unilateral total hip replacement surgery.
Measures The subjects completed the following measures at baseline and follow-up:
Individual quality of life: this involved the following stages. First, the subjects were
asked to list the five areas of life that they considered to be most important to their
quality of life. Second, the subjects were then asked to rate each area for their status
at the present time ranging from ‘as good as could possibly be’ to ‘as bad as could
possibly be’. Finally, in order to weight each area of life, the subjects were presented
with 30 randomly generated profiles of hypothetical people labelled with the five
chosen areas and were asked to rate the quality of life of each of these people. These
three ratings were then used to compute total quality of life score (i.e. adding up each
current rating and multiplied by weighting per area).
Global health status: the subjects completed the McMaster health index questionnaire,
which assesses physical, social and emotional functioning (Chambers et al. 1982).
Disease specific health status: subjects completed the arthritis impact scale that assesses
nine aspects of functioning: mobility, physical activity, dexterity, household activities,
social activity, activities of daily living, pain, anxiety and depression (Meenan et al.
1980).
Results
The results were analysed in terms of the areas of life selected as part of the individual
quality of life scale and to assess the impact of the hip replacement operation in terms of
changes in all measures from baseline to follow-up and differences in these changes
between the patients and the controls.
Areas of life selected: Social/leisure activities and family were nominated most
frequently by both groups. Happiness, intellectual function and living conditions
were nominated least frequently. Health was nominated more frequently by the
control than the patients who rated independence and finance more frequently.
The impact of the hip replacement operation: The results showed that all measures of
quality of life improved following the hip replacement operation.
MEASURING HEALTH STATUS 389