Amy E Bonomi

University of Washington Seattle, Seattle, Washington, United States

Are you Amy E Bonomi?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)22.58 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The systematic integration of quality-of-life (QOL) assessment into the clinical setting, although deemed important, infrequently occurs. Barriers include the need for a practical approach perceived as useful and efficient by patients and clinicians and the inability of clinicians to readily identify the value of integrating QOL assessments into the clinical setting. We discuss the use of QOL data in patient care and review approaches used to integrate QOL assessment into the clinical setting. Additionally, we highlight select QOL measures that have been successfully applied in the clinical setting. These measures have been shown to identify key QOL issues, improve patient-clinician communications, and improve and enhance patient care. However, the work done to date requires continued development. Continued research is needed that provides information about benefits and addresses limitations of current approaches.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 11/2007; 82(10):1214-28. · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the success of screening and treatment of major cancers in the United States, cancer remains a chronic condition dominated by symptoms and treatment-related adverse effects. Because of these often taxing symptoms and adverse effects, numerous studies have been conducted to document the effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the quality of life (QOL) of patients. But there has been limited investigation of the clinical significance of QOL scores. This article examines the clinical significance of QOL scores from 3 key perspectives: patients, clinicians, and the general population. The patient's perspective includes an evaluation of the size of difference in scores that individual patients can detect and regard as important. The clinician perspective relies on whether the clinician believes the patient's condition has stayed the same vs whether changes have occurred (decline or improvement). The population perspective represents a democratic process in which the input or votes of a community of people are used to determine if health state A is clinically significantly different from health state B. While many clinicians and researchers advocate for QOL to be defined from the patient's perspective, the reality is that QOL is often defined by clinicians in terms of observable events. Even when measures are used in which the patient identifies how his or her life has been affected, it is often the clinician who interprets the clinical importance of this information. The clinician's perspective has value in framing an experience within the context of what is usual for a group of individuals, and the population perspective provides inputs as to how society may use limited resources. However, we conclude that a more prominent role for the patient's QOL perspective is needed.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 06/2002; 77(5):488-94. · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1991, the World Health Organization initiated a project to simultaneously develop a quality of life (QOL) instrument in 15 countries: The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. This was intended as a generic QOL tool for use with patients across varying disease types, severities of illness, and cultural subgroups. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the WHOQOL-100 in the U.S., one of the original 15 participating countries. The WHOQOL is a 100-item self-report instrument consisting of 24 subscales within six domains: Physical, Psychological, Independence, Social, Environment, and Spiritual. Four additional items pertain to overall QOL/health. We tested the WHOQOL-100 (U.S. version) in a sample of 443 adults (n = 251 chronically ill, n = 128 healthy, and n = 64 childbearing) in the U.S. to test its reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), construct validity (convergent, discriminant), responsiveness, and factor structure. The WHOQOL-100 (U.S. version) has acceptable internal consistency (alpha range: 0.82-0.95 across domains) and reproducibility (ICC range: 0.83-0.96 at 2-week retest interval). It is responsive to change in clinical conditions, as evidenced by predicted score change (effect size) in women after childbirth. Construct validity was demonstrated by (1) its correlation with the Short Form-36 and Subjective Quality of Life Profile, and (2) its ability to discriminate between the diverse samples in this study. The conceptual structure was confirmed exactly with the exception of four facets that did not correlate most highly with the domains to which they were originally assigned, but these differences were minor. The WHOQOL measurement system is suitable for evaluating the QOL of adults in the U.S. The psychometric properties will be continually evaluated as more data become available in the U.S.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 02/2000; 53(1):1-12. · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 02/2000; 53(1):19-23. · 5.48 Impact Factor