Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 490

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What are quality of life measurements measuring?

Open access
Muldoon, M. F, Barger, S. D, Flory, J. D, Manuck, S. B·1998·BMJ

Abstract

Abstract It is now widely acknowledged that the personal burden of illness cannot be described fully by measures of disease status such as size of infarction, tumour load, and forced expiratory volume. Psychosocial factors such as pain, apprehension, restricted mobility and other functional impairments, difficulty fulfilling personal and family responsibilities, financial burden, and diminished cognition must also be encompassed. The area of research that has resulted from this recognition is termed “health related quality of life.” It moves beyond direct manifestations of illness to study the patient9s personal morbidity—that is, the various effects that illnesses and treatments have on daily life and life satisfaction. Although quality of life assessment was almost unknown 15 years ago, it has rapidly become an integral variable of outcome in clinical research; over 1000 new articles each year are indexed under “quality of life.” Although the importance of quality of life is broadly acknowledged, scepticism and confusion remain about how quality of life should be measured and its usefulness in medical research. These responses may reflect important conceptual and methodological limitations of the current concept of quality of life. We offer a simple framework that describes the core elements of quality of life related to health and use this to evaluate quality of life measurement as it is currently conducted. Summary points Measures of disease status alone are insufficient to describe the burden of illness; quality of life factors such as pain, apprehension, depressed mood, and functional impairment must also be considered Two operational definitions of quality of life are identified—objective functioning and subjective wellbeing Assessments of objective functioning and subjective wellbeing convey different information, they also present different problems in relation to validation Assessment of functioning derived from questionnaires must be validated against measures of directly observed behavioural performance Subjective appraisal of wellbeing may be influenced substantially by psychological factors unrelated to health or to changes over time in patients9 criteria for appraising wellbeing Whether and how quality of life researchers respond to these obstacles and deficiencies will probably determine the quality of their work in the future

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Muldoon, M. F., Barger, S. D., Flory, J. D., & Manuck, S. B.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-02-14
Volume
316
Issue
7130
Pages
542-545
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2106916609
Cited by
490
References
34
FWCI
38.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What are quality of life measurements measuring? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542
The paper
Muldoon, M. F., Barger, S. D., Flory, J. D., & Manuck, S. B. (1998). What are quality of life measurements measuring? BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7130.542

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.