A method for measuring quality of life through subjective weighting of functional status

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 84, Issue 4 SUPPL. 2, 2003, Pages

  Stineman, Margaret G ^a   Wechsler, Barbara ^a   Ross, Richard ^a   Maislin, Greg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcome assessment (health care); Patient centered care; Quality of life; Recovery of function; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DISABILITY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INDEPENDENCE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PERFORMANCE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 0037388505     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50242     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Batavia AI. Assessing the function of functional assessment: a consumer perspective. Disabil Rehabil 1992;14:156-60.
2. Calman KC. Quality of life in cancer patients - an hypothesis. J Med Ethics 1984;10:124-7.
3. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezney M, Tashman JS. A uniform data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: PH Brookes; 1987. p 137-47.
4. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM), version 4.0. Buffalo (NY): Research Foundation, State Univ New York; 1994.
5. Bunch WH, Dvonch VM. The "value" of Functional Independence Measure scores. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:40-3.
6. Kane RL, Rockwood T, Finch M, Philp I. Consumer and professional ratings of the importance of functional status components. Health Care Fin Rev 1977;19(2):11-22.
7. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996;334:835-40.
8. Dijkers M. Measuring quality of life: methodological issues. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999;78:286-300.
9. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:593-600.
10. Stineman MG, Maislin G, Nosek MA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: application of a new feature-resource trade-off consensus building tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1522-9.
11. Lipscomb J. Value preferences for health: meaning, measurement, and use in program evaluation. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, editors. Values and long term care. Lexington (MA): DC Heath; 1982. p 27-67.
12. Sox HC, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworth; 1988.
13. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:622-9.
14. Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1101-8.
15. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:127-32.
16. Samuelson PA. Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard Univ Pr; 1947. ch V.
17. Frieden L, Richards L, Cole J, Bailey O. ILRU source book: a technical assistance manual on independent living. Houston: The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research; 1979.
18. Nathanson DL. Shame and pride: affect, sex, and the birth of the self. New York: Norton; 1992.
19. Ozer MN. Patient participation in the management of stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 1999;6(1):43-59.
20. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy 2001;55(1):51-69.
21. Guyatt GH, Naylor CD, Juniper E, Heyland DK, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1997;277:1232-7.
22. Leplege A, Hunt S. The problem of quality of life in medicine. JAMA 1997;278:47-50.
23. Stineman MG. Defining the population, treatments, and outcomes of interest: reconciling the rules of biology with meaningfulness. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:147-59.
24. World Health Organization. ICF: international classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.