IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i7d10.1007_s40273-016-0389-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Milad Karimi

    (University of Sheffield)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

The terms health, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and quality of life (QoL) are used interchangeably. Given that these are three key terms in the literature, their appropriate and clear use is important. This paper reviews the history and definitions of the terms and considers how they have been used. It is argued that the definitions of HRQoL in the literature are problematic because some definitions fail to distinguish between HRQoL and health or between HRQoL and QoL. Many so-called HRQoL questionnaires actually measure self-perceived health status and the use of the phrase QoL is unjustified. It is concluded that the concept of HRQoL as used now is confusing. A potential solution is to define HRQoL as the way health is empirically estimated to affect QoL or use the term to only signify the utility associated with a health state.

Suggested Citation

  • Milad Karimi & John Brazier, 2016. "Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 645-649, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0389-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Anna Lau & Robert Cummins & Wenda Mcpherson, 2005. "An Investigation into the Cross-Cultural Equivalence of the Personal Wellbeing Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 403-430, July.
    4. Ebrahim, Shah, 1995. "Clinical and public health perspectives and applications of health-related quality of life measurement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1383-1394, November.
    5. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    6. Alex Michalos, 2004. "Social Indicators Research and Health-Related Quality of Life Research," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 27-72, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    2. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    3. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    6. Annie Hawton & Colin Green & Elizabeth Goodwin & Timothy Harrower, 2019. "Health state utility values (QALY weights) for Huntington’s disease: an analysis of data from the European Huntington’s Disease Network (EHDN)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(9), pages 1335-1347, December.
    7. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Daniel M. Hausman, 2010. "Valuing health: a new proposal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 280-296, March.
    9. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    10. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    11. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Christopher McCabe & Richard Edlin & David Meads & Chantelle Brown & Samer Kharroubi, 2013. "Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 635-641, August.
    13. Nan Luo & Pei Wang & Julian Thumboo & Yee-Wei Lim & Hubertus Vrijhoef, 2014. "Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 495-507, May.
    14. Jing Chen & Carlos K H Wong & Sarah M McGhee & Polly K P Pang & Wai-Cho Yu, 2014. "A Comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    15. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    16. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    17. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.
    18. Colin Green & David A Richards & Jacqueline J Hill & Linda Gask & Karina Lovell & Carolyn Chew-Graham & Peter Bower & John Cape & Stephen Pilling & Ricardo Araya & David Kessler & J Martin Bland & Sim, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-12, August.
    19. Mavranezouli, I & Brazier, JE & Young, Tracey A. & Barkham, M, 2009. "Using Rasch analysis to form plausible health states amenable to valuation: the development of CORE-6D from CORE-OM in order to elicit preferences for common mental health problems," MPRA Paper 29849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0389-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.