Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Opinion polling and decision making: a critical appraisal of quality of life assessment

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between quality of life (QOL) assessments and decision making, in relation to the delivery of health services, is subjected to critical appraisal. Three levels of decision making in the health care system are taken into account in the analysis. Criticisms of opinion polling provide the basis for the appraisal. Examples of criticisms considered are: Might the use of QOL information be manipulative? Could the interviews or questionnaires used to obtain QOL data influence personal opinions? Are the methods used sometimes defective and/or superficial? Will QOL information always be used in decision making in ways that are ascertainable and justifiable? It is concluded that the time has come for the main focus of critical appraisal in QOL research to shift, from an emphasis on evaluation of the quality of methods used for assessments of QOL, toward an emphasis on the practical usefulness of QOL data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Quality of life in cancer: definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Invest 1993; 11: 327–36.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Markham, ON: Thomas Allen & Son Ltd, 1986.

  3. Crespi I. Public Opinion, Polls and Democracy. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sutherland HJ, Till JE. Quality of life assessments and levels of decision making: differentiating objectives. Quality Life Res 1993; 2: 297–303.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stanley JM (ed.) Part IV: Decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment under conditions of scarcity. J Med Ethics 1992; 18S: 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Osoba D, Aaronson NK, Till JE. A practical guide for selecting quality of life measures in clinical trials and practice. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1991: 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ. Procedures for value assessment. Rec Adv Nurs 1987; 17: 169–85.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jennings B. Health policy in a new key: setting democratic priorities. J Soc Issues 1993; 49: 169–84.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kaplan RM. A quality-of-life approach to health resource allocation. In: Strosberg MA, Wiener JM, Baker R, Fein IA, eds. Rationing America's Medical Care: The Oregon Plan and Beyond. Washington DC: The Brookings Institute, 1992: 60–77.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Oregon Health Services Commission. Prioritization of Health Services: A Report to the Governor and Legislature. Salem, OR: Oregon Health Services Commission, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kaplan RM. Application of a general health policy model in the American health care crisis. J Roy Soc Med 1993; 86: 277–81.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decision Making 1990; 10: 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fox DM, Leichter HM. State model: Oregon the ups and downs of Oregon's rationing plan. Health Affairs 1993; 12: 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. The Oregon Health Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Human Resources, Office of Medical Assistance Programs, 1993: 24.

  18. Hoy C. Margin of Error: Pollsters and the Manipulation of Canadian Politics. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hodder-Williams R. Public Opinion Polls and British Politics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nikiforuk A. School's Out. Toronto: Macfarlane Walter and Ross, 1993: 78.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mackillop WJ, Palmer MJ, O'Sullivan B, Ward GK, Steele R, Dotsikas G. Clinical trials in cancer: the role of surrogate patients in defining what constitutes an ethically acceptable clinical experiment. Br J Cancer 1989; 59: 388–95.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goldfarb M, Axworthy T. Marching to a Different Drummer. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company, 1988: xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stapel J. Public opinion polling: some perspectives in response to critical perspectives. Int J Public Opinion Res 1993; 5: 193–4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kahneman D, Tversky A. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1259–62.

    Google Scholar 

  26. O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukov Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med Decision Making 1985; 5: 453–63.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Osoba D (ed.) Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1991: 38.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Thiel EC. Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Med Care 1993; 31: 1002–12.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, McGreal MJ. Cancer patients' evaluations of their current health states: the influences of expectations, comparisons, actual health status, and mood. Med Decision Making 1992; 12: 115–22.

    Google Scholar 

  30. O'Boyle CA, McGee H, Hickey A, O'Malley K, Joyce CRB. Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet 1992; 339: 1088–91.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bar-On D, Amir M. Reexamining the quality of life of hypertensive patients: a new self-structured measure. Am J Hypertension 1993; 6: 62S-6S.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tchekmedyian NS, Cella DF. (Guest editors) Quality of life in current oncology practice and research. Oncology (Special Issue) 1990; 4: 21–232.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Levine MN, Guyatt GH, Gent M, et al. Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1798–810.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. The Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations: an instrument for assessing cancer patients' needs. J Psychosoc Oncol 1983; 1: 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Padilla GV, Presant C, Grant MM, Metter G, Lipsett J, Heide F. Quality of life index for patients with cancer. Res Nurs Health 1983; 6: 117–26.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Quality of Life Index: development and psychometric properties. Adv Nurs Sci 1985; 8: 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Townsend P, Davidson N (eds.) Inequalities in Health. The Black Report. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Evans RG, Stoddart GL. Producing health, consuming health care. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31: 1347–63.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nord E. Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy 1993; 24: 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Williams A. Cost-effectiveness analysis: is it ethical? J Med Ethics 1992; 18: 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Harris J. Life: quality, value and justice. Health Policy 1980; 10: 259–66.

    Google Scholar 

  42. LaPuma J. Quality-adjusted life years: ethical implications for physicians and policymakers. JAMA 1990; 263: 2917–21.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Veatch RM. The Oregon experiment: needless and real worries. In: Strosberg MA, Wiener JM, Baker R, Fein IA, eds. Rationing America's Medical Care: The Oregon Plan and Beyond. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1992: 78–90.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sutherland HJ, Walker P, Till JE. The development of a method for determining oncology patients' emotional distress using linear analogue scales. Cancer Nurs 1988; 11: 303–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. deHaes JCJM, vanKnippenberg FCE, Neijt JP. Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer 1990; 62: 1034–8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Toronto: Little Brown and Company, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Epidemiology and Statistics, Ontario Cancer Institute/Princess Margaret Hospital, 500 Sherbourne Street, M4X 1K9, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    H. J. Sutherland

  2. Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    H. J. Sutherland & J. E. Till

  3. Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    J. E. Till

Authors
  1. H. J. Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. E. Till
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of Canada with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sutherland, H.J., Till, J.E. Opinion polling and decision making: a critical appraisal of quality of life assessment. Qual Life Res 3, 155–162 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435258

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435258

Key words

Search

Navigation