From: Systematic review of health-related quality of life models
Criteria and Description (Bredow,[10]) | Wilson &; Cleary Model of HRQOL[12] | Ferrans et al. Revised Wilson and Cleary Model of HRQOL[13] | World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (WHO ICF)[3] |
---|---|---|---|
Internal criticism | |||
Adequacy | |||
Addresses a defined area | |||
· Completeness | · Complete overall conceptualization of HRQOL from biomedical and social science perspectives | · Expanded Wilson &; Cleary’s model to better explicate individual and environmental factors | · Complete overall conceptualization of health from biomedical and social science perspectives |
· Gaps | · Gaps include management of therapeutic regimens and self-management | · Gaps still include management of therapeutic regimens and self-management | · Gaps include determinants of health, management of risk factors, and self-management |
· Need for refinement | · Refinement for specific practice situations needed. | · Refinement for specific practice situations needed. | · Refinement for specific practice situations needed. |
Clarity | · Main concepts well-defined, although individual and environmental characteristics not explained. | · Main concepts well-defined, including individual and environmental characteristics. | · Main concepts well-defined, with the exception of overlap between activities and participation. |
Explicit components | · Explicit proposition that dominant relationships exist with the potential for reciprocal relationships. | · Explicit proposition that dominant relationships exist with the potential for reciprocal relationships. | · Explicit propositions exist with reciprocal relationships that can be used to map the constructs and domains. |
· Concepts (components) defined | · Strength of the relationships of each component is unclear and with each additional relationship the complexity increases. | · Propositions were added with individual and environmental characteristics. | · Explicit assumption that model provides a multipurpose classification and can serve as a unified and standard language for health care workers, researchers, policy-makers, and the public. |
· Explicit propositions (Relationships) | · Other relationships were implied. | · Nonmedical factors removed; described as part of individual and environmental characteristics. | |
· Explicit assumptions (Beliefs) | · Explicit assumption that understanding relationships among these domains will lead to the design of optimally effective clinical interventions. | · Explicit assumption that understanding relationships among these domains will lead to the design of optimally effective clinical interventions. | · Another explicit assumption is that model can be used to help plan interventions for functional goals and health, worldwide. |
Consistency | |||
Consistency | |||
· Concepts Congruency | · Concepts consistently defined. | · Concepts consistently defined. | · Concepts consistently defined. |
· Assumptions (beliefs) | · Assumptions were congruent | · Assumptions were congruent | · Assumptions were congruent |
· Propositions (relationships) | · The figure depicts dominant directional relationships whereas the text mentions reciprocal and other non-depicted relationships. | · Propositions were congruent. | · Propositions were congruent. |
Logical development | · Emerged based on research from biomedical and social sciences. | · Revision of Wilson &; Cleary | · Integration of medical and social models for a biopsychosocial approach. |
Based on previous work Evidence supports | · Relationships depicted don’t always hold true, research evidence supports lack of relationships in some instances (e.g., biological vs. symptoms) | · Emerged based on empirical evidence and the need for further clarity. | · Evolved over time from the WHO ICIDH model in 1980 to the WHO ICF in 2001, with the WHO ICF-CY for children and adolescents added in 2007. |
· Based on systematic field trials and international consultation. | |||
Level of development | |||
Level of abstraction (grand, middle range, or practice) | · Middle range but global | Middle range but global | Middle range but global |
External criticism | |||
Complexity | |||
· Number of concepts | · 5 main abstract concepts (biological/physiological, symptom status, functional status, general health, quality of life) | · 5 main abstract concepts with further development of the individual and environmental factors. | · 6 main abstract concepts (body functions, body structures, activity, participation, environmental factors, and personal factors). |
· Parsimony | · Parsimonious because used only 5 main concepts to explain abstract HRQOL. | · Parsimonious because used only 7 main concepts to explain abstract HRQOL. | · Parsimonious because used only 6 main concepts to explain abstract health and health-related states. |
· Complexity | · Overall model is complex with multiple relationships | · Overall model is complex with multiple relationships | · Overall model is complex with multiple relationships |
Discrimination | · First HRQOL model to combine biomedical with social science | · Revised Wilson and Cleary’s HRQOL model | · Belongs to a family of WHO Classifications, with the WHO ICF being specific to functioning and disability. |
Unique theory of HRQOL with clear boundaries | · Unique to HRQOL | · Unique to HRQOL | · Not unique to HRQOL. |
· Boundaries are purposefully not clear as two theories are combined and the relationships between concepts are additive. | · Clear boundaries and limited to HRQOL of individuals. | · Clear boundaries addressing health and health-related domains. | |
· Hypotheses generation may help to clarify boundaries. | · Does not cover non-health related circumstances. | ||
Reality convergence | · Moving from cellular level to quality of life in model seems more realistic than traditional biomedical model by itself. | · Realism added with the incorporation of nonmedical factors into individual and environmental factors. | · Assumptions seem true, realistic, and consistent. |
· Assumptions “real world” | · “Makes sense” for real world application. | · “Makes sense” for real world application. | · “Makes sense” for real world application. |
· Theory/model “makes sense” | · Assumptions are difficult to actualize | · Assumptions more realistic | |
Pragmatic | Guided literature applied to real world settings: | Guided literature applied to real world settings: | Guided literature applied to real world settings: |
Operationalized in real-life settings | · 3 literature reviews, | · 2 literature reviews | · 3 literature reviews |
· 4 descriptive, | · 1 instrument development | · 2 instrument development | |
Model testing in entirety not done | Model testing in entirety not done | ||
· 6 correlational, | · Overall, generic and situation-specific measures exist | · Overall, generic and situation-specific measures exist | |
· 1 randomized trial, | · Response shift is a concern for general health and quality of life components | · Response shift may also be a concern. | |
· 1 qualitative, | |||
· 1 mixed methods | |||
· 1 model revision (Ferrans) Model testing in entirety rarely done | |||
· Overall, generic and situation-specific measures exist | |||
· Response shift is a concern for general health and quality of life components | |||
Scope | |||
· breadth of theory/model | · Broad model to explain complex nature of HRQOL | · Further broadens Wilson and Cleary’s scope by expanding on individual and environmental factors | · Broad model to explain health and health-related domains for all people. |
· applies across ages (lifespan), health and disease conditions, cultures, socioeconomics, and individuals/families/ communities | · Could apply to individuals of all ages, life spans, health and disease conditions, and perhaps cultures depending on their orientation to the meaning of quality of life and general health. | · Could apply to individuals of all ages, life spans, health and disease conditions, and cultures across the world. | |
· WHO ICF-CY specifically covers infants, children, and adolescentzs. | |||
· May not apply to those who are unable to define their own general health or quality of life (e.g., infants, comatose), or those who have very limited functioning. | · Focus is on individuals (with or without disabilities), families, communities, and populations. | ||
· Primarily applies to individuals, less to families and communities. | |||
Significance | · Most widely cited HRQOL model | · Emerging citations for Revised HRQOL model | · Emerging citations for the use of the WHO ICF for hypothesis testing (mainly instrument development). |
· Potential impact on practice | · Guides HRQOL assessment toward a more comprehensive approach to improving HRQOL Potential for intervention research but limited evidence exists to date. | · Guides HRQOL assessment toward a more comprehensive approach to improving HRQOL | · As a clinical tool, can be used for needs assessments, matching treatments with conditions, and evaluating outcomes. |
· Hypotheses lead to assessment or interventions | · Because of the complexity of the model and lack of testing of the full model, supporting interventions would be difficult. | · Potential for intervention research but limited evidence exists to date. | · As a research tool, can be used for measuring quality of life, outcomes, environmental factors, or other constructs. |
· Potential for intervention research but limited evidence exists to date. More of a mapping and classification framework, rather than hypothesis generating. | |||
Utility | Hypothesis generating for: | Hypothesis generating for: | Hypothesis generating for: |
Hypothesis generating for clinicians, researchers, epidemiologists, policymakers | · Clinicians for a broader view of HRQOL than just biological factors and symptoms. | · Clinicians for a broader view of HRQOL than just biological factors and symptoms. | · Clinicians for needs assessments, matching treatments with conditions, vocational assessment, and rehabilitation and outcome evaluation |
· Researchers to guide measurement and intervention studies: | · Expands focus of article (audience) from physicians (Wilson &; Cleary) to nurses and other health professionals (Ferrans). Model could be applied to any health care discipline. | · Researchers to guide development of measures for outcomes, quality of life, or environmental factors | |
· Potentially relevant to epidemiologists if using global measures across populations (e.g., SF-36). | · Researchers to guide measurement and intervention studies. | · Epidemiologists to collect and record data for populations and management information systems | |
· More research evidence and emphasis on environmental factors needed to convince policymakers. | · Potentially relevant to epidemiologists if using global measures across populations (e.g., SF-36). | · Policymakers to plan social security, compensation systems, and policies. | |
· More research evidence and emphasis on environmental factors needed to convince policymakers. | · Educators to design curriculums that emphasize awareness and social action. | ||
· Although potential for hypothesis generation in these areas, there is currently limited evidence found in the HRQOL literature documenting these applications. |