A good HRQL measure would investigate environmental and personal aspects that influence function. Finally, HRQL should be measured from a subjective point of view (i.e., from the patient’s perspective), take into account the individual patient’s values, desires, expectations and autonomy of choice

(i.e., measure function against what the patient wants to achieve, rather than what the questionnaire developers expect or feel to be normal) [39,40,42]. Health status and HRQL measures are sometimes divided into generic and disease-specific. Generic measures have the advantage of being applicable across the whole spectrum of diseases, and therefore allow standardization and comparison between persons with haemophilia and patients with other diseases. However, selleck products the effects of interventions directed specifically towards haemophilia

(e.g. factor prophylaxis to reduce bleeding frequency) may not be measurable with generic measures (that may not, for example, have specific questions about bleeding). Several generic HRQL measures have been used in haemophilia studies, namely the Short Form 36 (SF-36), SF-12, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the Quality of Well-Being Index (QWB) [43]. Bullinger, et al., representing the International Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG) have reviewed the haemophilia-specific HRQL questionnaires [43]. For adults, these are Alectinib manufacturer the Haemo-Qol-A [44], Haem-A-Qol [45], the Hemofilia-QoL [46], Hemolatin-QoL [47] and QUAL-HEMO. For children, these are the Haemo-QoL [48], CHO-KLAT [49] and a proxy measure for very young patients [50]. Most of these tools were studied and shown to have good to excellent reliability and construct validity; i.e., most of these tools have demonstrated measurement properties that make them suitable for use in studies

and in the clinic. Furthermore, in general, these tools address five domains of health – physical, emotional/social, functional, mental and treatment-related MCE公司 – and can therefore be thought of as addressing some of the main areas defined by the ICF model. There are some ways, though, in which these measures fall short of the ideal detailed above. Although persons with haemophilia (or in some cases their parents) answer these questions from their own experience – the questions asked, the scoring options listed and the values attached to those scores reflect the values and expectations of the questionnaire developers,1 rather than the values and expectations of the individual patient answering the questionnaire. That is, these measures are not fully subjective, and do not take into account individual autonomy of choice. They are missing key elements important for the assessment of QoL. A better name for these tools, then, might be ‘self-reported measures of health status’.