|Scale||Domains addressed||Completion time/Number of items||Response format||Accessibility||Validity||Reliability||Responsiveness||Floor/ Ceiling effects||Conclusions/recommendations of the reviews|
|COOP/WONCA ||Physical fitness, feelings, daily activities, social activities, pain, change in health, overall health, social support and quality of life||
<5 mins |
9 items (more recently reduced to 6)
|Five options with pictorial depictions accompanying the text||
Available in 20 languages |
Acceptable and feasible 
|HIV positive women had poorer scores than HIV negative women on six out of nine health dimensions (construct validity) ||not stated||not stated||not stated||not stated|
|EQ-5D [22, 23]||Mobility; self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression, self-reported health||
1 min |
5 dimensions of quality of life are rated on either a 3 point scale (no problems/ some or moderate problems/ extreme problems – EQ-5D-3 L) or 5 point scale (no problems/ slight problems/ moderate problems/ severe problems/ extreme problems – EQ-5D-5 L).|
In addition, a visual analogue scale (0–100) is used to rate overall health.
Approximately 1 min to complete .|
Available in multiple languages [12, 18].
Can be administered electronically or over phone .
General population preference weights have been derived for many countries .
Correlates with MOS-HIV subscales and discriminates between participants stratified by HIV/AIDS severity based on CD4 count/viral load (construct validity) [4, 12].|
Lower EQ-5D scores among people with HIV not receiving ART than general population (construct validity) .
|not stated||Responsive to initiation of ART, the development of opportunistic infections and adverse events [4, 10, 12, 13], with small-to-medium effect sizes in each of its five dimensions .||Ceiling effects in general population samples [4, 12, 20].||
Clayson et al. recommend using the EQ-5D alongside a disease-targeted measure, however because of ceiling effects in general population samples they would not recommend the EQ-5D for studies including individuals with early, asymptomatic HIV infection. |
Wu et al. recommend use alongside the MOS-HIV to obtain HIV-specific HRQL and utility measures .
Performance equivalent to the MOS-HIV in clinical trials .
Can generate indirect health utility values for use in economic models [10, 11].
|FLZM Questions on life satisfaction ||Satisfaction with life in general: friends’ free time, general health, financial security, work, life conditions, family life and relationships. Satisfaction with health: physical condition, ability to rest, energy, mobility, freedom from anxiety, freedom from pain, independence||
“A few minutes” |
|5 point scales rating the importance of and satisfaction with each aspect of quality of life.||not stated||not stated||not stated||not stated||not stated||not stated|
|Health Utilities Index (HUI) HUI2; HU13 ||Vision, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, hearing, speech and pain||
5–10 mins |
|4–6 response options for each question||
Available in multiple languages .|
Can be administered electronically .
HUI2 and 3 have been associated with disease severity/AIDS related events and plasma viral load (construct validity). |
Correlates well with most MOS-HIV subscales (convergent validity) [4, 12, 20].
|not stated||Responsive to change in HIV disease states [4, 12, 20], however the MOS-HIV and the EQ-5D VAS had better discriminatory capacity .||not stated||
Despite less evidence for the HUI than EQ-5D and SF-36, emerging data were positive. |
Potentially useful adjuvant to an HIV-specific measure in a trial. 
|McGill Quality of life questionnaire (M-QOL) ||Physical, Psychological, Existential, Support.||16 items||Two response options for each item (e.g. no problem vs tremendous problem)||not stated||
Content/face validity: The existential dimension is particularly relevant to people with advanced disease (CD4 < 100) |
Only scores for physical symptoms distinguished between people with HIV with low and high CD4 count (construct validity). 
|Factor analysis indicated four reliable subscales plus a single item about physical wellbeing (internal consistency). ||not stated||not stated||not stated|
|SF-12 ||Physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, mental health||
2–3 mins |
|2–6 response options per item||not stated||not stated||No internal consistency data reported .||Mixed results in terms of responsiveness to change in treatment .||Likely to have similar floor and ceiling effects to other MOS measures .||Clayson et al. recommend the use of the SF-12 where the length of the SF-36 is a problem. |
|SF-20 ||not stated||
3–5 mins |
|3–6 response options per item||not stated||No construct validity data .||Adequate cronbach’s alphas (internal consistency) .||not stated||Floor and ceiling effects noted in some dimensions .||not stated|
|SF-36 [29,30,31]||Physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, mental health, reported health transition||
7–10 mins |
|2–6 response options per item||
Has been translated into several different languages [18, 20].|
Dominates generic HR-QOL measurement with normative scores for US, UK and many other countries [4, 20].
Takes 7–10 min to complete .
Can be administered electronically 
Correlates with disease severity, CD4 counts and other measures of QOL.(construct validity) |
PLWL reported lower QOL on all dimensions, compared to healthy controls [12, 13, 20], with the biggest decline between Stages 1 and 2 of the disease (construct validity) [13, 20].
Scale scores were associated with treatment duration, less co-morbidity, and better social support improved physical functioning (construct validity) .
|Cronbach’s alpha within acceptable range (internal consistency) [12, 17].||
Responsive to the initiation of ART and change in CD4 count, viral load and the number of symptoms. |
Improvement in all HRQOL domains along with clinical indicators after starting ART. May not be sensitive to change of ART medication in people with HIV who are stable on ART .
|Problems with floor and/or ceiling effects for some subscales [17, 20].||
More evidence for the SF-36 in people with HIV than other recommended generic measures (EQ-5D or HUI) and the SF-12 is a viable alternative if the length is a problem. |
Coluatti et al. recommend the SF-36 as the most appropriate generic measure for assessing HRQL in people with HIV .
Use alongside a disease-targeted measure (other than the MOS-HIV which shares items) is recommended. 
Unclear whether there is an advantage to using the MOS-HIV over the SF-36. 
This and other MOS measures were developed in US – although translated into other languages people from these countries had no input into development and these versions may have limited semantic equivalence .
Can be used in cost-utility analyses by deriving utility weights from the SF-36 .
|WHOQOL-BREF [32, 33]||Physical health, psychological health, social relationships and environment.||
<5 mins |
Available in 40 languages. Takes <5 min to complete .|
Developed in 15 centres worldwide to increase cross-cultural validity .
|Correlates well with disease severity, patients who had lower CD4 counts had lower HRQOL (construct validity) .||Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in the acceptable range (internal consistency) .||not stated||not stated||Developed from the WHOQOL-100 measure, which was developed within an international collaboration of 15 countries using a spoke-wheel methodology to ensure conceptual and semantic equivalence .|