The QDIS-7: one scale for measuring the disease-specific quality-of-life impact of different medical conditions - Fukuhara, Shunichi; Green, Joseph; Wakita, Takafumi; Yamamoto, Yosuke; Yamazaki, Hajime; Ware, John E. (medRxiv, 2024)
Background When studying health-related quality of life (QOL), disease-specific instruments have the advantage of measuring the unique effects of particular medical conditions. Almost every disease-specific QOL instrument uses its own metric, and measures QOL in its own content areas. The unfortunate result is that scores from different disease-specific QOL instruments cannot be compared. In contrast, the seven-item Quality of Life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS-7) has response choices on only one scale (one metric) and its content is standardized. Thus, the QDIS-7 should allow disease-specific QOL to be compared across different diseases. We therefore tested whether, unlike scores from the traditional mutually-incompatible metrics, those from the single-metric QDIS-7 are comparable across diseases.Methods Responses to the QDIS-7 questions (regarding global QOL, physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, vitality, mental health, and health outlook) were used to compute a single score, based on an item-response model. When the QDIS-7 was completed by respondents with different diseases, the content of the question-items was the same, and the only difference was the name of the disease to which the respondents explicitly attributed any impact on their QOL. In an online survey, 2,627 adults who had sought care for headache, low-back pain, asthma, or diabetes, each responded to the QDIS-7 and to a previously-validated disease-specific QOL instrument (“legacy scale”) that was developed to measure QOL in their specific disease. We examined the slopes from four regressions of legacy-scale scores on QDIS-7 scores. Similarity of those slopes would support the hypothesis that the QDIS-7 enables quantitative comparisons of disease-specific QOL across those four different medical conditions.Results For all four groups, the regression-line slopes were nearly the same: 0.12 to 0.14 legacy-scale standard deviations per 1-point difference in QDIS-7 score. Thus, each 10-point difference in QDIS-7 scores is equal to slightly more than one standard-deviation difference in legacy-scale scores, for all four groups.Conclusions The relationships of score differences on the legacy measures to score differences on the QDIS-7 (i.e., the slopes) were similar across the four groups, which is consistent with the idea that the QDIS-7 enables comparisons of disease-specific QOL across different medical conditions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunding for parts of this study came from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, through the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:On August 21, 2020, the plan for this study (201611-3) was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the the Institute for Health Outcomes and Process Evaluation Research (iHope: <http://www.i-hope.jp/>).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll reasonable requests for access to the data produced in the present study should be directed to the corresponding author.