Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Irina Cleemput (a1) and Mattias Neyt (a2)


Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important endpoint of many healthcare interventions. This study develops guidance on how to select appropriate HRQoL measures for inclusion in a clinical trial, given the purposes of the HRQoL measurement.

Methods: The guidance is based on a systematic literature review, discussions with members of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and two rounds of public consultation.

Results: A set of twelve recommendations was developed, addressing the requirements for HRQoL data for relative effectiveness assessment, for cost-utility analyses and for informing clinical decision making. Recommendations relate to the choice of the type of measure as well as to aspects such as measurement frequency, target population and presentation.

Conclusions: The purpose and context of HRQoL measurement is crucial for the relevance of the data obtained with a specific HRQoL measure. It is recommended to always include a generic HRQoL instrument in clinical trials to cover a wide range of possible future uses of the HRQoL data.



Hide All
1. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. London: EMA; 2006:5.
2. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.
3. Goodman, CS. Healthcare technology assessment: Methods, framework, and role in policy making. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4 Spec No:SP200-14.
4. Jackowski, D, Guyatt, G. A guide to health measurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003:8089.
5. Kleijnen, S, Goettsch, W, d'Andon, A, et al. EUnetHTA JA WP5: Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. Background review. July 2011 (version 5B). Copenhagen: EUnetHTA; 2011.
6. Fitzpatrick, R, Davey, C, Buxton, MJ, Jones, DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i–iv, 174.
7. Guyatt, GH, Feeny, DH, Patrick, DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622629.
8. Neyt, M. Towards more consistent use of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:345346.
9. Stull, DE, Leidy, NK, Parasuraman, B, Chassany, O. Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: Challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:929942.
10. Machin, D, Weeden, S. Suggestions for the presentation of quality of life data from clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:711724.
11. Petrillo, J, Cairns, J. Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:453461.
12. Chuang, LH, Kind, P. Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: An empirical comparison of methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:491505.
13. Wild, D, Eremenco, S, Mear, I, et al. Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: The ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:430440.
14. Ware, JE Jr, Keller, SD, Gandek, B, Brazier, JE, Sullivan, M. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare. 1995;11:525551.
15. Gao, F, Ng, GY, Cheung, YB, et al. The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:206213.
16. Hahn, EA, Bode, RK, Du, H, Cella, D. Evaluating linguistic equivalence of patient-reported outcomes in a cancer clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2006;3:280290.
17. Coons, SJ, Gwaltney, CJ, Hays, RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419429.
18. Hacker, ED. Technology and quality of life outcomes. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2010;26:4758.
19. Hoedemaekers, R, Dekkers, W. Key concepts in health care priority setting. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:309323.
20. Staquet, M, Berzon, R, Osoba, D, Machin, D. Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:496502.
21. Calvert, MJ, Freemantle, N. Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 2: Methodological considerations for the assessment of health-related quality of life in clinical trials. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004;29:8594.
22. Billingham, LJ, Abrams, KR, Jones, DR. Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1152.
23. Fayers, PM, Machin, D. Quality of life: Assessment, analysis, and interpretation. Chichester, New York: John Wiley; 2000.
24. Kristensen, F, Sigmund, H. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.



  • Irina Cleemput (a1) and Mattias Neyt (a2)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed