Content uploaded by Kalliopi Megari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kalliopi Megari on Jun 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
[Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27] [page 141]
Quality of life in chronic
disease patients
Kalliopi Megari
School of Psychology, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
During the past decades there was an
increasing predominance of chronic disorders,
with a large number of people living with
chronic diseases that can adversely affect their
quality of life. The aim of the present paper is
to study quality of life and especially Health-
related quality of life (HRQoL) in chronic dis-
eases. HRQOL is a multidimensional construct
that consists of at least three broad domains −
physical, psychological, and social functioning
− that are affected by one’s disease and/or
treatment. HRQoL is usually measured in
chronic conditions and is frequently impaired
to a great extent. In addition, factors that are
associated with good and poor HRQoL, as well
as HRQoL assessment will be discussed. The
estimation of the relative impact of chronic
diseases on HRQoL is necessary in order to
better plan and distribute health care
resources aiming at a better HRQoL.
[«All the people perceive the concept of liv-
ing good or being well, that is the same as being
happy». (Aristotle. 384-322 BC. Ethica
Nichomachea)]
Quality of life
The World Health Organization (WHO)
defines health as not merely the absence of dis-
ease or infirmity, but a state of complete psychi-
cal, mental and social well being.1The defini-
tion of Quality of Life (QoL) is more complex.
According to WHO, QoL is defined as individu-
als’ perceptions of their position in life in the
context of the culture and value systems in
which they live and in relation to their goals,
expectations, standards and concerns.2QoL is
the feeling of overall life satisfaction, as deter-
mined by the mentally alert individual whose
life is being evaluated.3This appraisal is sub-
jective, and encompasses all domains of life,
including elements of a biopsychosocialspiri-
tual model.4The use of the term subjective has
different connotations to different people and
can be perceived as not reliable because it is
not objective. Subjective can be synonymous
with self-perceived meaning that a person pri-
marily gives information about himself.
Other definitions of QoL suggest that it is a
global personal assessment of a single dimen-
sion which may be causally responsive to a
variety of other distinct dimensions: it is a uni-
dimensional concept with multiple causes.5
Therefore, it encompasses the entire range of
human experience, states, perceptions and
spheres of thought concerning the life of an
individual or a community. Both objective and
subjective QoL can include cultural, physical,
psychological, interpersonal, spiritual, finan-
cial, political, temporal and philosophical
dimensions. QoL implies a judgment of value
placed on the experience of communities,
groups such as families or individuals.6
Finally, it is suggested that QoL can theoret-
ically encompass a wide ranging array of
domains and components. These involve func-
tional ability including role functioning (func-
tional ability in different roles like in physical
activities and achievement beliefs), the degree
and quality of social interaction, psychological
well-being, somatic sensations, happiness, life
situations, life satisfaction and need for satis-
faction.7It also reflects life experiences’, sig-
nificant life events and the current phase of
the life and the factors defining QoL in this
respect further include sex, socioeconomic
status, age and generation.8QoL is thus a com-
plex collection of interacting objective and sub-
jective dimensions: encompasses the individ-
ual’s perspective, is assessed through the eye
of the experiencer,9and is likely to be mediated
by cognitive factors.7
Health related quality of life
Patrick and Erickson (1993) define health-
related quality of life (HRQoL) as the value
assigned to duration of life as modified by the
impairments, functional states, perceptions and
social opportunities that are influenced by dis-
ease, injury, treatment or policy.6A main topic
in HRQoL includes patients’ appraisal of their
current level of functioning, as well as satisfac-
tion with it, compared to what they believe to
be ideal. An important aspect in HRQoL study
is how the manifestation of an illness or treat-
ment is experienced by an individual. Patients’
heath status assessment includes personal
experiences which are affected by health care
interventions as well as changes over time
with a chronic disease and no particular treat-
ment. For example, evaluation of HRQoL over
time after disease such as stroke, for individu-
als who have completed treatment and rehabil-
itation and are living with the effects of this
disease.10
It is generally accepted that HRQOL is a
multidimensional construct that consists of at
least three broad domains − physical, psycho-
logical, and social functioning − that are affect-
ed by one’s disease and/or treatment. Physical
functioning is usually defined as the ability to
perform a range of activities of daily living, as
well as physical symptoms resulting from the
disease itself or from treatment. Psychological
functioning ranges from severe psychological
distress to a positive sense of well-being and
may also encompass cognitive functioning.
Social functioning refers to quantitative and
qualitative aspects of social relationships and
interactions and societal integration.11
A model of HRQoL might lead to a better
explanation of the previous statements. Wilson
& Cleary (1995) describe a conceptual model
of HRQoL that provides a theoretical approach
to conceptualizing HRQoL as a multidimen-
sional construct and integrates biological and
psychological aspects of health outcomes.1 2
This model consists of five different levels
namely, physiological factors, symptom status,
functional health, general health perceptions
and overall QoL. It has been widely applied to
different populations, including patients with
cancer, arthritis, Parkinson’s disease and HIV.
It is indicated that symptom status, functional
health, general health perceptions, and overall
QoL are dimensions of HRQoL (Figure 1).12
Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized linkages
between the dimensions. The model suggests
that physiological variables influence symptom
status, symptom status influences functional
health, functional health influences general
health perceptions and general health percep-
tions influence overall QoL. The evaluation of
physiological variables focuses on cells,
organs, and organ systems, though the assess-
ment of symptom status shifts to the organism
as a whole.12 Functional health is defined as
the ability of an individual to perform and
Correspondence: Kalliopi Megari, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki,
Greece.
E-mail: kmegari@psy.auth.gr
Key words: health related quality of life, health
status, chronic disease, quality of life, patients.
Conflict of interests: the authors declares no
potential conflict of interests.
Received for publication: 13 January 2013.
Revision received: 1 March 2013.
Accepted for publication: 2 March 2013.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-
NC 3.0).
©Copyright K. Megari et al., 2013
Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27
doi:10.4082/hpr.2013.e27
Health Psychology Research 2013; volume 1:e27
Non-commercial use only
[page 142] [Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27]
adapt to one’s environment, measured both
objectively and subjectively over a given peri-
od. General health perceptions reflect an inte-
gration of all health concepts previously
reviewed, additional with mental health and
they are by definition subjective ratings.
Although health perceptions are personal
beliefs, overall QoL has been described as the
discrepancy between a person’s expectations
or hopes and his present experiences.13 Wilson
& Cleary model was later revised by investiga-
tors Ferrans, Zerwic, Wilbur & Larson (2005).
The revised model was developed in order to
explain the relationships of clinical variables
that relate to QoL by linking individual charac-
teristics with environmental characteristics.14
In parallel, a number of studies of HRQoL
have been conducted in health care literature
to test these findings. Zautra & Hempel (1984)
reviewed many studies of health and reported
that, overall, high correlations were found
between self-reported health status and indi-
cators of well-being, although this association
does not indicate the direction of causality.15
Good levels of physical and mental functioning
and general health status have long been asso-
ciated with perceived well-being, morale and
overall QoL.16
On the other hand, Bowling et al. focused on
the concept that HRQoL has been based on a
model of illness-health and dependency. They
have also focused on the impact of illness-
health status and disease on, and measure-
ment of, physical and mental disability and
impaired role functioning. The emphasis has
been on (dys) functional status. Functional
status is the degree to which a person is able
to perform socially allocated roles free of phys-
ical or mental health related limitations.17 It
emphasizes the ability to perform activities of
daily living and mobility (e.g. self-care), instru-
mental daily living (e.g. housework) and more
recently, social role obligations. The aim of
measurement has usually been to track the
speed of return to normal activities, whenever
this is obtainable.17 There are many situations
where it is not expected a return to normal
activities, especially with a chronic, progres-
sive condition. The aim, however, may be con-
cerned in observing changes in HRQoL over
time.
Broader models of health are generally
based on the WHO’s (1954) earlier definition
of health, with broader measures of health out-
comes which incorporate social, physical and
psychological well-being and positive health,
alongside self-rated health status, rather tradi-
tional indicators. These models are based on
prevalence of risk conditions (e.g. obesity)
selected chronic conditions (e.g. asthma, dia-
betes) and mortality rates (all causes, specific
causes).6They emphasise not just the absence
of disease and disability, but to a number of
reasons: completeness, efficiency of mind and
body, the ability to cope with stressful situa-
tions, social support and psychological well-
being, including life satisfaction, physical fit-
ness and health.6
In conclusion HRQoL as a multidimensional
construct has a lot of research that focuses on
different dimensions. Wilson & Clary model is
a model that integrates biological and psycho-
logical aspects of health outcomes. Other
researchers emphasize on the absence of
health and the ability of someone to perform
activities of daily living. The point is that all
these views may seem different, but they tend
to focus on the dimensions of HRQoL and pro-
vide us with very useful findings.
Health related quality of life in
chronic diseases
During the past decades there was an
increasing predominance of chronic disorders,
as a result of improved living conditions, better
prevention, infectious diseases management,
medical technological improvements and over-
all aging of the population. Therefore, an
increasing number of people live with chronic
diseases that can adversely affect their HRQoL.
In general, chronic diseases are slow in pro-
gression, long in duration, and they require
medical treatment. The majority of chronic dis-
eases hold the potential to worsen the overall
health of patients by limiting their capacity to
live well, limit the functional status, productiv-
ity and HRQoL and are a major contributor to
health care costs.18 Among these diseases are
cancer, heart diseases, stroke, diabetes, HIV,
bowel diseases, renal disease and diseases of
central nervous system.
Devins et al. (1983), claim that chronic dis-
ease disrupts an individual's life and that this
disruption may be interpreted in terms of its
impact on well-being, or QoL. Psychosocial
well-being is compromised by two limitations:
by reducing positively reinforcing outcomes of
participating in valued activities and feelings
of personal control and by limiting the ability
to obtain positive outcomes or avoid negative
ones. They have further suggested that this
impact can be assessed in terms of QoL
domains.18
The literature in health psychology general-
ly supports the hypothesis that most patients
do compare themselves with those patients
who are better off (upward comparisons).19
This positive focus on limitations may be
responsible for the better psychological adjust-
ment to illness among this group, in compari-
son with those who make downward compar-
isons. Patients tend to make downward com-
parisons of themselves with patients worse off
with them, only when experiencing difficulties
and make upward comparisons with people
healthier than themselves when setting stan-
dards for their recovery.20
In the context of chronic diseases study,
HRQoL is studied as a primary or secondary
outcome. HRQoL is an important measure to
evaluate the impact of a disease and the
effects of medical intervention, thus, an
improvement in HRQoL is considered to be an
essential primary outcome and determinant of
therapeutic benefit.10 While, it is found more
usually to be the secondary outcome that pro-
vides the researchers with hypothesis-generat-
ing data. In some cases the outcomes of inter-
est may involve only certain domains such as
physical functioning or emotional functioning.
Information on the impact of chronic diseases
on HRQoL can make health services more
patient-centred.10
Conclusively, as the number of people with
chronic diseases is increasing it is necessary
for them to gain an optimal HRQoL. To achieve
this, a study of HRQoL is used to evaluate the
impact of a disease and the effects of medical
interventions. This study would provide infor-
mation so that the patients’ voice should main-
ly be considered.
Health related quality of life
assessment in chronic disease
HRQoL can be assessed either by interview
or questionnaire. Interview methods use open-
ended or semi-structured methods, are useful
for initial creation of items to be used subse-
quently in questionnaires to discover issues
and to describe the experiences of the
patients.10
As regards questionnaires two main types
are used: i) generic HRQoL questionnaires,
which are used to evaluate HRQoL in different
populations and ii) specific HRQoL question-
Review
Figure 1. The pathway in the Wilson and Cleary (1995) HRQOL conceptual model.
Non-commercial use only
[Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27] [page 143]
naires, which are used to evaluate HRQoL in
patients with specific conditions and are
claimed to be more responsive, as they include
items relevant to the designated patient popu-
lation. Both generic and specific instruments
have pros and cons and must be estimated
within the context of the particular study.10
Generic instruments allow comparisons
between across conditions and interventions,
but usually do not focus on a specific interven-
tion adequately. These measures can provide
population norms of healthy HRQoL to which
HRQoL in disease states can be compared and
admit comparisons across different diseases
and conditions and across interventions.
Generic health status measures differentiate
groups on important dimensions of overall
health and functioning and can also be more
sensitive to comorbid conditions.10 They are
also useful for policy analysis and health care
decision making and because of their broader
range of assessment they may yield unexpect-
ed findings (regarding comparisons to differ-
ent groups of health conditions).5This means
that they are used to assess the efficiency of
the chosen treatment by considering the
patients’ perspectives. It becomes necessary to
have assessment methods that are able to ver-
ify the fact that although the treatment used
does not completely restore health, it at least
restores QoL to acceptable levels.
On the other hand, specific instruments are
usually more comprehensive and provide
greater precision and sensitivity to clinically
important changes that might be missed by
broader assessment approaches. In addition,
they are more responsive to change, but are
not inclusive and may not be available for cer-
tain populations, since such measures are
designed to access specific patient population
and disease states.10 There are instruments
designed to assess specific conditions or symp-
toms, such as pain, fatigue and depression that
may occur in many different kinds of diseases.
Some measures assess those symptoms and
concerns that occur in association with partic-
ular treatments, but which may be common to
several diseases.10 Specific measures have the
advantage of being more closely related to
physical findings and disease correlates, but
their major disadvantage is that they are often
limited to particular populations or interven-
tions.10
In parallel, there are some characteristics
for desirable measures. The data must be
based on patients’ opinion, changes in priori-
ties with increasing age and understandable
language must be used. They must have relia-
bility, validity (content validity), sensitivity to
change/responsiveness, if the measure is to be
used to evaluate change over time and provide
quantifiable results with clinical and statistical
significance. Additionally, they should be mul-
tidimensional, attainable to patients, being
short and usable in a busy clinical setting.10
Finally, some of the measures that are com-
monly used in studies of chronic disease are
the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-
Form Health Survey (SF-36),21 the Nottingham
Health Profile (NHP) and the EuroQol (EQ-
5D).22,23 These instruments are translated in
many languages and are used in many coun-
tries. An example of specific instrument is the
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-
General (FACT-G) that can be used as generic
by deleting those questions that ask about
one’s specific condition.5,24
A methodological issue: the issue
of response shift
HRQoL assessment includes also the diffi-
culties of comparing people because of varying
standards for comparison as well as shifting
standards over time.25 The issue of response
shift refers to a phenomenon that can occur in
any field where self-report data are collected
and is an important methodological issue. The
concept of response reflects the fact that
patients make an assessment, judgment, or
rating of a health state. The notion of shift
implies change; more specifically a change in
the patient's response. Response shift is a
change in the meaning of one's self evalua-
tion of a target construct as a result of a
change in the respondent's internal standards
of measurement or scale recalibration.
Another reason is a redefinition of the target
construct or concept redefinition or a change
in the respondent's values or the importance of
component domains representing the target
construct.12
While response shift is not new from a clin-
ical perspective, it is a relatively new phenom-
enon from a methodological viewpoint.
Assessments, completed over time may be
incomparable due to shifting internal criteria
values.11 Response shift describes changes in
certain dimensions of HRQoL while other
dimensions remain stable. Some measures of
functioning are concrete and clearly defined,
such as basic activities of daily living (for
example someone can or can not walk up a
flight of stairs) and are unlikely to undergo
response shift. The factors that do undergo
response shift with high susceptibility are gen-
eral health perceptions and overall QoL, with a
wide variety of determinants.26 Wilson (1999)
reports that the more specific and discrete the
concept being measured, the less the likelihood
that response shift will occur. Respectively, the
broader the concept measured, the more likely
is that response shift will occur.
Conclusively, in case there is a change in
health away from the homeostatic state, people
immediately begin, in most cases, the process
of response, readjustment and coping with
short term or long term efforts. The concept of
response shift potentially gives new insights
into some uncomfortable clinical problems.26
Assessing response shift may therefore be
needed to obtain a valid and sensitive assess-
ment of change over time. Sprangers (2002)
suggests that the most established method is
the comparison of the baseline and retrospec-
tive measure that would provide a denotation
of the amount and direction of response shift
effects.11
Factors associated with health
related quality of life in chron-
ic diseases
There are a large number of publications
that study HRQoL in chronic disease therefore
the relatively recent ones (from 1997 to 2012)
that cover a wide range of chronic diseases,
were selected for the present study. In agree-
ment with Wilson and Cleary model, factors
that were found to be associated with poor and
good HRQoL, will be presented.
Factors associated with poor health
related quality of life in cancer
Richardson, Wingo, Zack, Zahran & King
(2008) examined HRQoL of breast cancer sur-
vivors between ages 20-64 and found that
patients who reported being limited by cancer
primarily and had unhealthy behaviours,
showed lower HRQoL.27 HRQoL of breast can-
cer patients is associated with more limita-
tions in activities of daily living especially in a
great amount of patients aged 45-60 years
(55%) and 18-44 years old (39%).28
Among factors that play an important role in
HRQoL of breast cancer patients are psychoso-
cial factors. Specifically, psychosocial factors
such as problematic partner relationship, sex-
ual functioning and body image as well as less
adaptive coping strategies (e.g. lack of positive
cognitive restructuring) were associated with
impaired HRQoL. In addition patients under 50
years old were at risk for impaired HRQoL sev-
eral years after diagnosis.29
Another factor found to have an influence in
HRQoL of breast cancer patients is the type of
surgery. Oshumi et al., (2009) found mastecto-
my surgery, to be associated with worse HRQoL
than breast conserving treatment.30 Therefore,
Montazeri (2008) presented an extensive bib-
liographic review (between 1974 and 2007) of
breast cancer publications and concluded that
treatment related side-effects negatively affect
HRQoL and adherences to therapy.31
A type of cancer with survival rate at approx-
imately 50% is head and neck cancer.
Llewellyn, McGurk & Weinman, (2005) under-
Review
Non-commercial use only
[page 144] [Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27]
took a systematic literature review and focused
on psychosocial and behavioural factors. They
concluded that lack of social support and satis-
faction with information, depressive symptoms
and behavioural factors (alcohol, smoking
abuse) are associated with impaired HRQoL.32
Heart diseases and stroke
A number of publications, study HRQoL in
patients with heart failure. Patients with heart
failure have significant impairment of all
aspects of HRQoL, not simply physical func-
tioning.33 The physical (role and functioning)
health burden is significantly greater than that
suffered in other serious common chronic dis-
orders, whether cardiac or other systems.
Patients with heart failure that underwent a
Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) in situ,
showed poorer HRQoL and psychological func-
tioning compared to transplanted and explant-
ed patients. A LVAD is an acceptable alterna-
tive therapy in selected patients who are not
candidates for cardiac transplantation. More
importantly, HRQoL is a predictor of mortality
and morbidity after cardiac procedures.
Presence of symptoms, such as chest pain,
fatigue, and shortness of breath affect HRQoL
when patients recover acute cardiac events or
procedures (Table 1).33
Moreover, in coronary artery disease (CAD)
patients, depressive symptoms and type D per-
sonality are independent predictors of poor
HRQoL. People who show type D personality,
experience negative emotions and inhibit the
expression of emotion/behaviour.34 Type D per-
sonality is associated with vulnerability to
chronic emotional distress and an increased
risk for cardiac events in patients with CAD.34
Subjective (perceived) cognitive impairment
in CAD patients is associated with poor
HRQoL.35 While, neurocognitive functioning 5
years after coronary artery bypass grafting
(CABG), is found to have a strong connection
with decreased HRQoL.36
There are a number of papers that study
HRQoL in stroke. Their findings suggest that
factors such as hemispheral localization of the
lesion, paresis, coordination disturbances and
especially subjective tendency to depression
are highly correlated with poor HRQoL.37 In
addition, poststroke disability is a stronger
predictor of low HRQoL than depression 1 year
after stroke with patients with severe/moder-
ate disability to have lower HRQoL than
depressed patients.38 Handicap, anxiety, insti-
tutionalization and dementia are independent-
ly associated with HRQoL. Other investigators
reported that cognition is an important factor
that influences HRQoL.39 Finally, self-care and
self-efficacy (the confidence a person has in
his or her ability to perform relevant self-care
activities) are related to HRQoL and depres-
sion after stroke.40
In primary care practice, insomnia seems to
be one common complaint in patients with
chronic diseases and has been associated with
decline in physical and psychological health as
well as increased mortality. Insomnia is found
to be independently associated with worsened
HRQoL to almost the same extent as chronic
conditions such as congestive heart failure
and clinical depression.41
Diabetes, hepatitis C, HIV
Among a variety of chronic diseases (Table
1), poor HRQoL is associated with a number of
factors such as coexisting chronic diseases,
with greater number coexisting chronic dis-
eases a person has the more likely to report
impaired HRQoL.42,43 Adverse health risk behav-
iours like smoking, obesity, physical inactivity
and heavy drinking are associated with
decreased HRQoL in patients with asthma and
diabetes.44 Additionally, in diabetes having
multiple complications is clearly associated
with decreased HRQoL.45
Depressive symptoms in hepatitis C
patients were found to be connected to poor
HRQoL.46 In HIV, individuals with asympto-
matic HIV disease enjoy a physical HRQoL sim-
ilar to that of their non infected counterparts.
In contrast, emotional well-being is consider-
ably worse for those with HIV infection than
for those without HIV or with other chronic
diseases. HRQoL had the strongest association
with suicidal ideation among psychiatric
patients with HIV and can potentially serve as
a screening variable to identify patients partic-
ularly at risk.47
Bowel disease, renal disease, multi-
ple sclerosis
Continuing, other factors that were found to
be connected with poor HRQoL are sympto-
matic activity and the need for hospitalization
in inflammatory bowel disease.48
Sociodemographic variables, like being
female, older, less educated and divorced/wid-
owed, are related to poor HRQoL in patients
with end-stage renal disease (kidney function
5-10% of capacity). Women report lower psy-
chological health, a more negative perception
on different aspects of their environment and
a stronger dissatisfaction with their finances
and opportunities for recreation and acquiring
new skills.49 Finally, subjective (perceived) cog-
nitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS)
was found to be connected with poor HRQoL.50
Transplanted patients
Kidney transplanted patients: end-stage
renal patients undergo kidney transplantation
and they are the vast majority of transplanted
patients. The HRQoL of these patients is simi-
lar to that of the general population and higher
than that of haemodialysis patients. However
gender and educational level influence HRQoL,
meaning that females and people with lower
educational level show impaired HRQoL.51
Kidney, liver and heart transplanted patients:
overall, transplanted patients, show satisfacto-
ry HRQoL with no differences in experienced
HRQoL, 2 years after transplantation between
kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients.
However, fifty-three percent of all patients
reported bodily pain to be an important prob-
lem after organ transplantation, affecting daily
living and it limits physical function, vitality
and general health.52
Factors associated with good
health related quality of life
Alongside, there are some factors that were
found to be associated with improved HRQoL.
Among these seems to be heart revasculariza-
tion especially in CAD elderly patients. Elderly
patients that undergo cardiac surgery, benefit
from improved functional status and HRQoL.53
Many longitudinal studies have confirmed that
HRQoL is generally improved after cardiac sur-
gery, but most are restricted to short-term fol-
low-up, although some studies have followed
up patients at three, five and 20 years after sur-
gery.53 Herlitz et al. (2009) conducted a study
with long- term follow up and found that
despite an ongoing decline in HRQoL over the
years, there is still an improvement in most its
aspects 15 years after CABG compared with
that before surgery. Intensified early treatment
of diabetes, obesity and left ventricular dys-
function in CABG patients might allow an even
better long-term HRQoL.54 HRQoL is reported
to be a predictor of mortality following CABG.
The use of an LVAD in patients with advanced
heart failure resulted in a clinically meaning-
ful survival benefit and an improved HRQoL.55
Oshumi et al., (2009) found that breast con-
serving treatment versus mastectomy in addi-
tion with younger age and higher education,
are associated with slightly better HRQoL in
breast cancer patients. Montazeri, (2008) sug-
gests that interventions in these patients have
a positive effect to HRQoL, despite the nega-
tive effects of the disease.30,31
Recent findings in diabetes, suggest that
pump therapy, compared to multiple daily
injections, has beneficial effects on HRQoL.
While, results from large studies further sug-
gest that intensive treatment itself does not
impair HRQoL. In chronic diseases self-care
management has been used as the theoretical
underpinning for improved HRQoL.45
Patients with Chronic Kindey Disease
(CKD) show a significant improvement in
HRQoL after initiation of epoetin treatment in
dialysis and early renal failure patients. The
objective of epoetin treatment is a stable
increase of haematocrit of four or more points
above baseline. In addition HRQoL seems to
have a strong positive correlation with haemo-
globin concentration/haematocrit, higher
Review
Non-commercial use only
[Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27] [page 145]
Review
Table 1. Studies associated with poor health related quality of life in chronic disease.
Studies Studied chronic disease Participants Results
Thommasen & Diabetes, hypertension, 675 Coexisting chronic disease leads
Zhang, 2006 hyperlipidemia, to poor HRQoL
depression/anxiety
Strine et al., 2008 Asthma, arthritis, diabetes, 13.483 Adverse health risk behaviours
heart disease (smoking, obesity, physical
inactivity, and heavy drinking)
lead to poor HRQoL
Katz & Hypertension, diabetes, 3.445 Insomnia is associated with
McHorney, 2002 congestive heart failure, recent worsened HRQoL
myocardial infarction, depression
Falasca et al., 2009 Hepatitis C patients 20 Depressive symptoms are
associated with poor HRQoL
Haller & Miles, 2003 HIV psychiatric patients 190 Suicidality has an association
with poor HRQoL
Casellas et al., 2002 Inflammatory bowel disease 354 Symptomatic activity and theneed for
hospitalization are associated
with poor HRQoL
Vinck et al., 1997 Multiple sclerosis, coronary 18 Subjective (perceived) cognitive
artery disease impairment is associated with
poor HRQoL
Newman et al., 2001 Postoperative coronary 261 Neurocognitive functioning is
artery bypass grafting associated with poor HRQoL
Denollet et al., 2000 Coronary artery disease 319 Symptoms of depression and
type D personality are associated
with poor HRQoL
Theofilou 2011 Renal disease (end-stage) 144 Sociodemographic variables,
(female, older, less educated
&divorced/widowed) are associated
with poor HRQoL
Carod-Artal et al., 2000 Stroke patients 90 Poststroke disability is associated
with poor HRQoL
Rebollo et al., 2000 Kidney transplanted patients 210 Sociodemographic variables
& haemodialysis patients 170 (females & people with lower
educational level) are associated
with poor HRQoL
Forsberg et al., 1999 Kidney, liver & 76 Bodily pain affects HRQoL
heart transplanted patients
HRQoL, health related quality of life.
Table 2. Studies associated with good health related quality of life in chronic disease.
Studies Studied chronic disease Participants Results
Adegbola, 2007 Renal disease, 545 Spirituality is associated
fibromyalgia, AIDS, with good HRQoL
arthritis, heart disease
Rose et al., 2001 End-stage heart failure, 129 Psychological functioning is
(left ventricular assist device surgery) associated with good HRQoL
Azzopardi, 2009 Coronary artery disease 48 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
is associated with good HRQoL
Herlitz et al., 2009 Coronary artery disease 808 Early treatment of diabetes,
obesity & left ventricular
dysfunction are associated
with good HRQoL
Oshumi et al., 2009 Breast cancer 100 Breast Conserving Treatment,
younger age & higher education
are associated with good HRQoL
Non-commercial use only
[page 146] [Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27]
socioeconomic level and level of education.56
People with chronic illness have identified
spirituality as a resource that promotes
HRQoL. Spirituality is described as an impor-
tant element of life, invades all areas of life,
enables the person to cope and make sense of
the current situation and is studied by few
authors and researchers. Spiritual care is a
valid part of healthcare delivery and health
care professionals should provide spiritual
care.57 Issues of healthcare and spirituality
have a common meeting place in suffering
from chronic disease, because both offer deliv-
erance and healing in varying degrees.
Spirituality plays an important role in reduc-
tion of suffering well-being and enhancement
of HRQoL is evident among all people and
needs explanation beyond the usual ethnocen-
tric perspective (Table 2).57
Chronic diseases with impact on
health related quality of life
In addition to factors that were found to be
associated with poor and good HRQoL, there is
the question of which chronic diseases mostly
affect HRQoL, according to the literature.
Depression is found to be the most disabling
disease and osteoarthritis of the knee had
greater impact on the HRQoL than many other
chronic diseases, in Chinese patients.58,59 On
the other hand, patients in Europe, who report-
ed the poorest levels of functioning, were those
with cerebrovascular/neurologic conditions,
renal disease and musculoskeletal conditions,
something that raises cross-cultural differ-
ences issues.60
Cross-cultural differences represent the dif-
ferences between cultures about health and
diseases. Different cultures define health with
different ways and tend to focus in different
health behaviours. The chronic diseases that
mostly affect HRQoL according to Asian popu-
lation are not the same compared to Western
population because Asian population perceive
health with more holistic way. Although a
major number of studies are referred to North
America population, there are studies that
investigate HRQoL of other cultures, too.58,59,61
In contrast, symptomatic activity and socio-
demographic variables such as gender and
education, male with higher level of education
and inactive disease, showed better HRQoL in
patients with inflammatory bowel disease.48
Additionally, urogenital conditions, hearing
impairments, psychiatric disorders, and der-
matologic conditions were found to result in
relatively favourable functioning.60
Consequently, HRQoL assessment is used as
an outcome of any therapeutic intervention,
particularly when invasive procedures such as
cardiac operations are performed on groups
with limited life expectancy.62 Measures of
functioning, morbidity, and mortality do not
provide complete information about physical,
functional, emotional, and mental well-being
and can be supplemented by the patient’s per-
ceptions of their recovery.54
Interventions for chronic diseases
The research of HRQoL in chronic disease is
necessary for the creation of interventions.
Factors that were found to be associated with
good HRQoL in chronic diseases could be used
for the design of intervention programmes.
Interventions would strengthen public health
actions to manage chronic disease.18 Health
interventions are very useful for the patients
with different chronic diseases and medical
staff too and could become medical routine in
the daily care of such patients.
Interventions may include different pro-
grammes for different chronic disease. A main
contribution of the medical interventions is in
decision making, especially in patients with
cancer. Intervention studies include physical
training, relaxation training, health education
and stress management programmes, very
useful for CAD patients.63 Minimal interven-
tions, with educational self-management skills
can help patients to reduce the stigmatization
related with specific diseases such as HIV and
cancer. Other programmes provide psychoso-
cial counselling and health education too.63
Psychological assessment and interventions
to reduce psychological morbidity and improve
HRQoL will be important in patients with heart
failure, particularly in view of the increasing
numbers of LVADs being implanted and the
possibility of their use for long-term destina-
tion therapy.64 Given the dramatic decline in
HRQoL, heart failure healthcare interventions
will improve it.65 Studies show that patients are
satisfied with their HRQoL at 1 month after
implantation of a LVAD and are optimistic
about how well they thought they would do
after heart transplantation. Psychological fac-
tors are considered to be the strongest predic-
tors of satisfaction with overall QoL.66
In addition, as regards enhancement of
HRQoL, one intervention that used to enhance
HRQoL is palliative care. Palliative care pro-
vides the patient with life enhancing (rather
than life sustaining) interventions in an effort
to improve HRQoL. Palliative care focuses on
patients whose disease is not responsive to
curative treatment and includes control of
pain, other symptoms, as well as psychological,
social and spiritual problems.67 The ultimate
goal of palliative care is the best HRQoL possi-
ble and can be implemented at any point along
the chronic illness trajectory and is compatible
with active medical care.68
Other interventions that may improve
HRQoL include support and encouragement
strategies, patient education, exercise pro-
grams, employment support and active self-
management.69 It is however useful, within the
same chronic disease, to compare people at the
same stage of the disease, as each disease has
its own usual trajectory. Jenkins (1992) states
that trajectories of HRQoL may vary between
diseases and are characterized as a function of
the balance between forces for improvement
and for decline in the disease and in the indi-
vidual including their age, social characteris-
tics, general health and psycho- social well-
being.70
Besides all these, there are evidence-based
interventions aimed at preventing chronic dis-
ease (as ending smoking, eating healthy food
and limiting weight gain). These interventions
need to be studied in people with one or more
diseases to assess their effectiveness.7
Discussion
In sum, QoL is inherently a dynamic, multi-
level and complex concept, reflecting objective,
subjective, macro-societal and micro-individ-
ual, positive and negative influences which
interact.71 HRQoL is a multidimensional con-
struct that consists of least three broad
domains − physical, psychological, and social
functioning − that are affected by one’s dis-
ease and/or treatment.11 Most studies in people
with various chronic conditions, usually are
describing HRQoL and it would be unusual to
see the broader aspects of QoL included/evalu-
ated.
Measuring HRQoL without reference to a
conceptual model has constrained the develop-
ment of a knowledge base for HRQOL research.
A conceptual model places concepts in a con-
text and guides the development of new theo-
ries. Using theoretically based conceptual
models will enhance the applicability of the
concept as a reliable and valid outcome meas-
ure.72
The aforementioned Wilson and Cleary
HRQoL conceptual model (1995) provides a
theoretical approach to conceptualizing
HRQoL as a multidimensional construct and
could be used to unify the biomedical and
social science paradigms. The biomedical par-
adigm focuses on pathological processes and
biological, physiological, and clinical out-
comes, while the social science paradigm
focuses on functioning and overall well-
being.12 This model could be used as a tool to
assess interventions and organizational per-
formance within the new view that empha-
sizes health, functioning and QoL and focuses
on health care. It guides to the development of
new theories, could be used as a tool to assess
interventions and identify measure and
improve quality care for health care providers
and appropriate patient outcomes that con-
tribute to a better quality patient care.13 It
thereby, challenges researchers and clinicians
to be responsible for the consequences of their
Review
Non-commercial use only
[Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27] [page 147]
actions in response to changing roles and per-
ceptions about what constitutes HRQoL.13
In general, research on patients with vari-
ous chronic diseases indicates that coexisting
chronic diseases, adverse health risk behav-
iours, depressive symptoms, insomnia and
cognitive impairment, are associated with
impaired HRQoL. Therefore, intensified early
treatment of diabetes, obesity, and left ventric-
ular dysfunction, spirituality and interventions
for reducing psychological morbidity are asso-
ciated with improved HRQoL.
It seems difficult to get a coherent view of
the relationship between HRQoL and chronic
disease when the conditions are varying as
well as the ethnic and cultural background of
the population studied. The studies mentioned
earlier (Tables 1 and 2) have several limita-
tions, are heterogeneous some of them have a
small number of participants and the studied
patients are in different stages of different dis-
eases. However, these studies provide with
very useful findings available for testing in
future research.
The estimation of the relative impact of
chronic diseases on HRQoL is necessary to bet-
ter plan and distribution resources for
research, training and health care, to further
promote living well with chronic diseases.
Consequently, collaboration among different
sciences could produce better treatment out-
comes for people living with chronic disease,
especially those who are in greatest need. An
integrated framework, such as the biopscy-
chosocial model, for healthcare would be built
on a single guiding principle: that the aim of
addressing the physical, social and psychologi-
cal aspects of chronic disease is to help
patients with chronic diseases and the whole
population, to live well, regardless of the
chronic disease or an individual’s own current
state of health.60
Bowling et al. (2003) suggest that, research
on peoples’ values, shows that people within a
society do share a common set of core values,
although these vary in their relative impor-
tance to individuals and different social groups.
People’s values include the meeting of past
expectations, coping ability, independence and
control, health, relationships with others,
work, finances and standard of living and
leisure activities. An important health care
objective enhances all these and contribute to
the increase of life span years, while maintain-
ing an optimal HRQoL something that is not
only a primary concern of patients, their fami-
lies and clinicians, but is also of global policy
interest.17
HRQoL is a very useful construct with broad-
er domains that can be used to provide the sci-
entific community with the tools for patient-
centred health care. Integrated patient treat-
ment should include a lot of specialties besides
physicians like psychologies, nurses and social
workers in order to achieve the enhancement
of HRQoL in patients with chronic disease.
References
1. World Health Organisation. The first ten
years. The health organization. Geneva:
World Health Organisation; 1958
2. World Health Organisation. Programme on
mental health. Geneva: World Health
Organisation; 1996.
3. Meeberg GA. Quality of life: a concept analy-
sis. J Adv Nurs 1993;18:32-8.
4. Hiatt JF. Spirituality, medicine, and healing.
South Med J 1986;79:736-43.
5. Cella D, Nowinski CJ. Measuring quality of
life in chronic illness: the functional assess-
ment of chronic illness therapy measure-
ment system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
2002;83(Suppl. 2):10-7.
6. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and
health policy: quality of life in health care
evaluation and resource allocation. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
7. Brown J, Bowling A, Flynn T. Models of qual-
ity of life: a taxonomy, overview and system-
atic review of the literature. Proceedings of
European Forum on Population Ageing
Research. Sheffield, UK; June 2004.
8. Sevinc S, Akyol AD. Cardiac risk factors and
quality of life in patients with coronary
artery disease. J Clin Nurs 2010;19:1315-25.
9. Ziller RC. Self-other orientation and quality
of life. Soc Indic Res 1974;1:301-27.
10. Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM. Quality of
life assessment in clinical trials. New York:
Oxford University Press; 1998.
11. Sprangers MA. Quality-of-life assessment in
oncology. Achievements and challenges.
Acta Oncol 2002;41:229-37.
12. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical vari-
ables with health-related quality of life: a
conceptual model of patient outcomes. J Am
Med Assoc 1995;273:59-65.
13. Sousa KH, Kwok OM. Putting Wilson and
Cleary to the test: analysis of a HRQOL con-
ceptual model using structural equation
modelling. Qual Life Res 2006;15:725-37.
14. Ferrans CA, Zerwic JJ, Wilbur JE, Larson JL.
Conceptual model of health-related quality
of life. J Nurs Scholars 2005;37:336-42.
15. Zautra A, Hempel A. Subjective well-being
and physical health: a narrative literature
review with suggestions for future research.
Int J Aging Hum Dev 1984;19:95-110.
16. Bowling A, Bannister D, Sutton S. A multidi-
mensional model of QoL in older age. Aging
Ment Health 2002;6:355-71.
17. Bowling A, Gabriel Z, Dykes J, et al. Let’s ask
them: a national survey of definitions of
quality of life and its enhancement among
people aged 65 and over. Int J Aging Hum
Dev 2003;56:269-306.
18. Devins GM, Blinik YM, Hutchinson TA, et al.
The emotional impact of end-stage renal
disease: Importance of patients' perceptions
of intrusiveness and control. Int J Psychiatry
Med 1983;13:327-43.
19. Blalock SJ, De Vellis BM, De Vellis RF.
Adjustment to rheumatoid arthritis: the role
of social comparison processes. Health Educ
Res 1990;5:361-70.
20. Blalock SJ, De Vellis BM, De Vellis RF. Social
comparison among individuals with
rheumatoid arthritis. J Appl Soc Psychol
1989;19:665-80.
21. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B.
SF-36 health survey manual and interpreta-
tion guide. Boston: New England, Medical
Center; 1993.
22. Hunt S, McKenna S. The Nottingham Health
Profile user’s manual. Manchester: Galen
Research and Consultancy; 1991.
23. The EuroQol group. EuroQol − a new facility
for the measurement of health related qual-
ity of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-08.
24. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Cray G, et al. The func-
tional assessment of cancer therapy scale:
development and validation of the general
measure. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:570-9.
25. Sprangers M, Schwartz CE. Integrating
response shift into health-related quality of
life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci
Med 1999;48:1507-15.
26. Wilson I. Clinical understanding and clinical
implications of response shift. Soc Sci Med
1999;48:1577-88.
27. Richardson LC, Wingo PA, Zack MM, et al.
Health related quality of life in cancer sur-
vivors between ages 20 and 64 years. Cancer
2008;112:1380-9.
28. Hewitt M, Rowland JH, Yancik R. Cancer
survivors in the United states: age, health
and disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2003;58:M82-91.
29. Avis NE, Crawford S, Manuel J. Quality of
life among younger women with breast can-
cer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3322-30.
30. Oshumi S, Shimosuma K, Morita S, et al.
Factors associated with Health related qual-
ity of life in breast cancer survivors: influ-
ence of the type of the surgery. Jpn J Clin
Oncol 2009;39:491-6.
31. Montazeri A. Health-related quality of life in
breast cancer patients: a bibliographic
review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J
Exp Clin Cancer Res 2008;27:1-31.
32. Llewellyn CD, McGurk M, Weinman, L. Are
psycho-social and behavioural factors relat-
ed to health related-quality of life in patients
with head and neck cancer? A systematic
review. Oral Oncol 2005;41:440-54.
33. Fukuota Y, Lindgren T, Rankin S, et al.
Cluster analysis: a useful technique to iden-
tify elderly cardiac patients at risk for poor
quality of life. Qual Life Res 2007;16:1655-
Review
Non-commercial use only
[page 148] [Health Psychology Research 2013; 1:e27]
63.
34. Denollet J, Vaes J, Brutsaert DL. Inadequate
response to treatment in coronary heart dis-
ease. Adverse effects of type D personality
and younger age on 5-year prognosis and
quality of life. Circulation 2000;102:630-5.
35. Kiessling A, Henriksson P. Perceived cogni-
tive function is a major determinant of
health related quality of life in a non-select-
ed population of patients with coronary
artery disease – a principal components
analysis. Qual Life Res 2004;13:1621-31.
36. Newman MF, Grocott HP, Mathew JP, et al.
Report of the substudy assessing the impact
of neurocognitive function on quality of life
5 years after cardiac surgery. Editorial
Comment. Stroke 2001;32:2874-81
37. Niemi ML, Laaksonen R, Kotila M, Waltimo
O. Quality of Life 4 years after stroke. Stroke
1988;19:1101-7
38. Carod-Artal J, Egido JA, González JL, de
Seijas E. V. Quality of Life among stroke sur-
vivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: experi-
ence of a Stroke Unit. Stroke 2000;31:2995-
3000.
39. Clarke PJ, Black S, Badley E, et al. Handicap
in stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil
1999;21:116-23.
40. Robinson-Smith G, Johnston MV, Allen J.
Self-care self-efficacy, quality of life, and
depression after stroke. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 2000;81:460-4.
41. Katz DA, McHorney C. A. The Relationship
between insomnia and health-related quali-
ty of life in patients with chronic illness. J
Fam Pract 2002;51:229-35.
42. Thommasen HV, Zhang W. Impact of chronic
disease on quality of life in Bella Coola
Valley. Rural Remote Health 2006;6:1-18.
43. Adams RJ, Wilson DH, Taylor AW, et al.
coexistent chronic conditions and asthma
quality of life: a population-based study.
Chest 2006;129:285-91.
44. Strine TW, Chapman DP, Balluz LS, et al.
The associations between life satisfaction
and health-related quality of life, chronic
Illness, and health behaviors among U.S.
community-dwelling adults. J Commun
Health 2008;33;40-50.
45. Pouwer F, Hermanns N. Insulin therapy and
quality of life. A review. Diabetes Metab Res
Rev 2009;25:4-10.
46. Falasca K, Mancino P, Ucciferri C, et al.
Quality of life, depression, and cytokine pat-
terns in patients with chronic hepatitis C
treated with antiviral therapy. Clin Invest
Med 2009;32:E212-18.
47. Haller DL, Miles DR. Suicidal ideation
among psychiatric patients with HIV: psy-
chiatric morbidity and quality of life. AIDS
Behav 2003;7:101-8.
48. Casellas F, Lopez-Vivancos J, Casado A,
Malagelada JR. Factors affecting health
related quality of life of patients with inflam-
matory bowel disease. Qual Life Res
2002;11:775-81.
49. Theofilou P. The role of sociodemographic
factors in health - related quality of life of
patients with end - stage renal disease. Int J
Caring Sci 2011;4:40-50.
50. Vinck J, Put C, Arickx M, Medaer R.
Objective and subjective cognitive dysfunc-
tion and quality of life in multiple sclerosis.
Int J Rehabil Health 1997;3:187-95.
51. Rebollo P, Ortega F, Baltar JM, et al. Health
related quality of life (HRQOL) of kidney
transplanted patients: variables that influ-
ence it. Clin Transplant 2000;14:199-207.
52. Forsberg A, Lorenzon U, Nilsson F,
Bäckmana L. Pain and health related quality
of life after heart, kidney, and liver trans-
plantation. Clin Transplant 1999;13:453-60.
53. Azzopardi S, Lee G. Health-related quality of
life 2 years after coronary artery bypass graft
surgery. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2009;24:232-40.
54. Herlitz J, Brandrup-Wognsen G, Evander
MH, et al. Quality of life 15 years after coro-
nary artery bypass grafting. Coron Artery
Dis 2009;20:363-9.
55. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moscowitz AJ, et al.
Long term use of a left ventricular assist
device for end-stage heart failure. New Engl
J Med 2001;345:1435-43.
56. Valderrabano F. Quality of life benefits of
early anaemia treatment. Nephrol Dial
Transplant 2000;15 (Suppl 3):23-8.
57. Adegbola M. Spirituality and quality of life in
chronic illness. J Theor Construction
Testing 2007;10:42-6.
58. Cheung JC, Kwan AY, Chan SS, et al. Quality
of life of older adults: benefits from caring
services in Hong Kong. Soc Indic Res
2005;71:291-334.
59. Lam C, Lauder I. The impact of chronic dis-
eases on the health-related quality of life
(HRQOL) of Chinese patients in primary
care. Fam Pract 2000;17:159-66.
60. Sprangers M, de Regt E, Andries F, et al.,
Which chronic conditions are associated
with better or poorer quality of life? J Clin
Epidemiol 2000;53:895-907.
61. Magaji BE, Moy FM, Roslani AC, et al. Health
related quality of life among colorectal can-
cer patients in Malaysia: a study protocol.
BMC Cancer 2012;12:1-6.
62. Fruitman DS, MacDougall CE, Ross DB.
Cardiac surgery in octogenarians: can elder-
ly patients benefit? Quality of life after car-
diac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg
1999;68:2129-235.
63. van Elderen, T. Quality of life in patients
with cancer, CNSLD, coronary heart disease
and diabetes mellitus: a review of research
in the Netherlands. In: Rodriguez-Martin J,
ed. Health psychology and quality of life
research. Alicante: University of Alicante:
1995.
64. Wray J, Hallas CN, Banner NR. Quality of
life and psychological well-being during and
after left ventricular assist device support.
Clin Transplant 2007;21:622-7.
65. Hobbs FDR, Kenkre JE, Roalfe AK, et al.
Impact of heart failure and left ventricular
systolic dysfunction on quality of life. A
cross-sectional study comparing common
chronic cardiac and medical disorders and a
representative adult population. Eur Heart J
2002;23:1867-76.
66. Grady KL, Meyer P, Mattea A, et al.
Predictors of quality of life at 1 month after
implantation of a left ventricular assist
device. Am J Crit Care 2002;11:345-52.
67. World Health Organization. Cancer pain
relief and palliative care (Technical report
series 804). Geneva: World Health
Organization; 1990.
68. Jablonski A. Level of symptom relief and the
need for palliative care in the hemodialysis
population. J Hospice Palliative Nurs
2007;9:50-60.
69. Molzahn AE. Quality of life and chronic kid-
ney disease: living long and living well. In:
Molzahn A, ed. Contemporary nephrology
nursing: principles and practice. 2nd ed.
Pitman, NJ: Anthony J. Jannetti; 2006. pp
345-355.
70. Jenkins CD. Assessment of outcomes of
health interventions. Soc Sci Med
1992;35;367-75.
71. Lawton MP. A multidimensional view of
quality of life in frail elders. In: Birren JE,
Lubben J, Rowe J, Deutchman D, eds. The
concept and measurement of quality of life.
New York: New Academic Press; 1991.
72. Fawcett J, Downs FS. The relationship of
theory and research. Philadelphia: FA Davis;
1992.
Review
Non-commercial use only
