Current Status of Health-related Quality of Life Research in Korea / 대한류마티스학회지

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the existing Korean medical, nursing and public health academy articles on health-related quality of life, and provides recommendations for the universally validated core quality of life instruments and for wide use of these measures in clinical trials widely. METHODS: A comprehensive review of 116 Korean articles from www.richis.org was conducted. A review of the application, Korean validation, and publishment of Western quality of life instrument from www.QOLID.org. and Medline was conducted in the 116 Korean academic articles. RESULTS: 1. The journal search yielded a total 116 articles, of which 81 were published in Korean nursing academic journal, 35 in medical and public health journals 2. The 4 generic instruments were developed in Korea (1 for middle-aged adult in Seoul, 1 for geriatrics, Korean Quality of Life Scale, Catholic Medical Center Health Survey). The instrument for Korean middle-aged adult was used in 50 Korean articles, but the deletion of items and domains, and change of response scales without conceptual considerations showed. 3. The Korean articles used Western Instruments were 43, of which 13 used generic instruments, 24 used disease-specific, and 2 used domain-specific instruments. 4. The translated instruments in Korean were 4 instruments of COOP-chart, Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index-Generic version (QLI), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 12-Items Short Form (SF-12), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 36-Items Short Form (SF-36) among 33 kinds of quality of life instrument from www.QOLID.org. There was no evidence of publishment internationally on Medline searching. The Korean version of Euro-Qol (EQ-5D) instrument is going on the publishment. 5. Thirteen studies out of 116 Korean articles reported the use of Western Instrument including QLI, WHQOL, General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), COOP-C, COOP-WONCA, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and SF-36 among 33 generic quality of life instruments in Korean academic articles. The ommission of international validation step, deletion of items and domains, change of response scales without cultural adaptation and conceptual considerations showed in Korean studies used Western instruments. CONCLUSION: To use the health outcomes instruments universally and to perform multi-national studies, it is suggested that cross-cultural equivalence across all translated versions and conceptual equivalence of translated instruments to the original version must be verified and the quality of life assessment need to be applied to clinical trials.