Transcript Document
The following lecture has been approved for University Undergraduate Students This lecture may contain information, ideas, concepts and discursive anecdotes that may be thought provoking and challenging It is not intended for the content or delivery to cause offence Any issues raised in the lecture may require the viewer to engage in further thought, insight, reflection or critical evaluation Work-Related Quality of Life Dr. Craig Jackson Senior Lecturer in Health Psychology Faculty of Health UCE Birmingham Not The “Meaning” of Life . . .The “Quality” Getting There Slowly. . . . . “There is surely a place for research into psychological interventions that improve quality of life for patients after diagnosis or treatment. Maybe happiness (or reduced happiness) has some effect on survival” Letter to British Medical Journal Nov 2002 What is Quality of Life? What does it denote? Something we increasingly referred to What attributes can be used to measure QoL? “The best way of approaching quality of life measurement is to measure the extent to which people's 'happiness requirements' are met - i.e. those requirements which are a necessary (although not sufficient) condition of anyone's happiness - those 'without which no member of the human race can be happy.” McCall 1975 Subjectivity of Quality of Life Recognising subjectivity of QoL is key Measuring the gap between what a person wants and what they have Expectations are adjusted to lie within realm of what is possible People with difficult life circumstances can maintain a QoL “Meaning” “Quality of Life is tied to perception of 'meaning'. The quest for meaning is central to the human condition, and we are brought in touch with a sense of meaning when we reflect on that which we have created, loved, believed in or left as a legacy.” Frankl, 1963 Subjectivity? There’s the catch QoL is NOT . . . . . Being Happy Being disease free Feeling warm and fuzzy Having money MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPT Driving that car Having a good job IT’S ALL OF THE ABOVE AND MORE . . . QoL may be. . . Ability Adaptation Appreciation Basic Needs Belonging Control Demands Distress Diversity Enhancement Enjoyment Environment Expectations Experiences Flexibility Freedom Fulfilment Gaps Gender Happiness Health Hopes Identity Spirituality Improvement Inclusivity Integrity Isolation Judgements Knowledge Lacks Living Conditions Needs Opportunities Perceptions Pleasure Politics Possibilities Religion Safe Satisfaction Security Self-esteem Society Status Stress Truth Well-being Working Conditions Mismatches Wishes The 3 B’s Being Belonging Becoming Quality of Life – Systems Models Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Very Broad Concept The effects of ill-health on Psychological, Social, Physical well-being Multidimensional No overall agreement on: what is included in QoL ? how to measure QoL ? gold standard ? Despite this. . . . . QoL scales still being made Jenney & Campbell 1997 Quality of Life measures Disease / Population Specific Particular health problems over several health domains, e.g. Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire Dimension Specific Particular aspects e.g. psychological, usually produces a single score Generic Measures Across different patient populations, measures many health domains e.g. SF-36 Individualised Patients include and weight importance of aspects of their own life, producing a single score e.g. Patient Generated Index Utility Specific Economic evaluation, preference for health states, produces a single index e.g. EuroQol Popularity of QoL measures 800 articles in BMJ since 1992 3921 papers concern QoL (17%) 1275 different scales of QoL 144 in 1990 650 in 1999 increase of 450% Disease / Population specific scales Generic measures scales Dimension specific scales Utility specific scales Individualised scales 1819 865 690 409 62 46% 22% 18% 15% 1% Garratt et al. 2002 How is QoL used in Research? Descartes – division of body and mind Biopsychosocial model reunified body & mind Studies should incorporate the patient's perspective of outcome Essential to provide evidence of impact on patient in terms of (i) Health status (ii) Health-related quality of life Traditional model of Disease Development Pathogen Modifiers Lifestyle Individual susceptibility Disease (pathology) Biopsychosocial model of Illness Pathogen Psychosocial Factors Attitudes Behaviour Quality of Life Illness (well-being) Why use QoL as an Outcome? Cannot remedy the problem? Cannot make things any better? Next best thing = Increase in employee QoL Central concept in health work WHO 1948 “Physical, mental and social well-being” 4 core components: Disease state and Physical symptoms Functional status Psychological functioning Social functioning Dimensions of Quality of Life Physical well-being Mental well-being Social well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHO 1948 Health and Functioning Spiritual satisfaction Family happiness Economic and social satisfaction . . . . . . . Ferrans & Powers 1985 Physical concerns Functional ability Future orientation Symptom control Sexual intimacy Occupational functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cella & Tulsky 1990 Self care activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hadorn & Hays 1991 Why use QoL as an Outcome? Pain Fatigue Disability Broader impacts of ILLNESS & TREATMENT Physical Emotional Social “Well-being” Subjectivity of Quality Broader impacts need to be assessed and reported by the patient Patient Assessed Measures QoL as a Widespread Outcome Reduced Quality of Life observed as outcome in many conditions: Child sexual abuse Dickinson et al. 1999 Chronic hep. c Koff, 1999 Rheumatoid arthritis Strombeck et al. 2000 Fibromyalgia Strombeck et al. 2000 Multiple sclerosis Shawaryn et al. 2002 Obesity Sturm et al. 2001 Asthma Hyland et al. 1995 Generic QoL Assessment Self Evaluation of Quality of Life (Danish EQoL) 308 questions! Good collection of demographic / prognostics data essential: Age Sex Residence Goods Social network Symptoms Life-Perception Height Housing Circumstances Friends Health Satisfaction Weight Education Lifestyle Eating Sexuality Need-Fulfilment Marital status Occupation Exercise Alcohol Self- Perception Ethnicity Domestic Income Smoking Drugs Disease Specific QoL Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( SS-QOL) 49 items Strongly agree Moderately agree Neither agree Moderately disagree 1. “I felt tired most of the time” 2. “I had to stop and rest often during the day” 3. “I felt I was a burden to my family” 4. “My physical condition interfered with my daily life” 5. “I felt hopeless about my future” 6. “I was not interested in food” Williams et al. 1999 Strongly disagree Disease Specific QoL Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( SS-QOL) 49 items 12 domains covered Mobility Energy Upper Extremity Function Vision Physiology Medical Personality Mood Language Thinking Psychology Cognitive Self-care Social roles Family Roles Work / Productivity Activity Social Methodological Problems of QoL Numerous measures of QoL in some specialties Little standardisation Two prerequisites for standardisation 1. Primary research through concurrent evaluation of measures 2. Secondary research through structured reviews of measures Recommendations from such QoL scales may not be simple to use clinically Methodological Problems of QoL QoL scales NOT independent of the patient Shopping Bag of experiences? “Shopping Trolley” Psychological status: Overlap between Affective and Somatic states Data dredging Too Specific designated: populations / diseases, timeframes, situations “Spirituality” ignored Generic QoL scales may suffer Developers of scales have vested interests Most popular QoL scales = Pushiest developer Psych / Perceptual Process of Illness Internal Process “Do I notice internal changes?” MENTAL SCHEMA “Should I interpret them negatively?” Internal representation of the world “Should I think they are important?” (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs) External processes “Do I notice external sources?” “What should I believe about it?” “What should I do about it?” What do we believe about health? What do we believe affects health? Factors Influencing Symptom Development Selective Internal Attention Tedious & un-stimulating environment Little communication Stressful environment Learned behaviours “Negative Affectivity” OVER FOCUS ON SYMPTOMS Comparisons Attributions Responses Blame Pessimism Factors Influencing Symptom Development Selective External Attention Heightened concern about risk involuntary uncontrolled lack of information dreaded consequences Mistrust of government / industry Attitudes about medicine Political agenda Legal agenda Social and political climate Media and pressure group activity OVER FOCUS ON SYMPTOMS Comparisons Attributions Responses Blame Pessimism Irritable Bowel Syndrome Common digestive disorder Functional syndrome Traumatic life events, Personality disorders, Stress, Anxiety, Depression Somatization Not a psychological disorder Night-workers & Loners Psychology important in how symptoms are perceived and reacted to Can poor QoL Become a predictor of who will suffer in advance? The UK Sheep Dipping Saga UK Sheep dipped twice yearly, and was compulsory 1984 – 1988 Organophosphate Pesticides (Ops) were the dip of choice & recommended by HSE & Government Routine sheep dipping is wet and messy work NOT usually an acute exposure Chronic and low level exposures more likely Non-specific symptoms alleviate 48 hours post-dip Dippers’ Flu Anxiety Depression Fatigue Aches & Pains Headache Fever Neurobehavioural problems (memory, concentration) The UK Sheep Dipping Saga The UK Sheep Dipping Saga The UK Sheep Dipping Saga The UK Sheep Dipping Saga Headaches Anxiety Fatigue Depression Dippers’ Flu Memory loss Concentration General malaise “Unexplained Symptom Syndrome” The UK Sheep Dipping Saga No Chronic Effects Ever Found • Symptoms should be acute & reversible, NOT chronic • Bio monitoring suggests symptoms should NOT occur • No good evidence of chronic effects (except after severe intoxication) • No reliable pattern to the symptoms reported • No pathological changes observed Some Short Term Effects Exposed Farmers Control Subjects General cramp Headache Shiver Weak muscles Sleep walking Cognitive problems Judging distance Numb toes Nose bleeds Earache Fever Sneezing Cough Runny eyes Stiff muscles General ache Pins and needles Buzzing ears Itchy skin Flaky skin Trouble sleeping Flushes Aggression General weakness Coughing blood Jackson et al. 2001 The Fall Out Begins Farmers’ Response Government Response Seek media exposure Initially deny any effects Pressure groups formed Commission research Support groups formed Organize committees / reviews Search for “medicalisation” Question research results Search for compensation Minor policy decisions Commission more research Why Did Farmers Become Ill ? Exposed to hazardous chemicals Opportunity to blame government Mistrust of government Lack of definitive information Attention from media Support of pressure groups * Isolation of farming life * Economic stress * Anti-chemical / pro-organic society * Farmers seen as intensive polluters * Unpopular with public * More Complicated Than Just OP Exposure Jackson et al. 2001 Quality of Life in Farming Satisfaction with Agricultural Life (SAL) 29 Items Found 4 factors concerning QoL in farmers 1. The Future of farming 2. Outside agencies 3. Financial cutbacks 4. Traditional lifestyle (solitude, limitations, freedom) More Satisfied Farmers = Reported Fewer Symptoms Jackson et al. 2003 Mental Health Problems of Sheep Farmers Satisfaction with Agricultural Life (SAL) Perceived Fatigue Reflective Personality Stressful Life Events Anxiety Depression Agricultural Dissatisfaction Handling Sheep <48hrs post-dip Jackson et al. 2003 Increased Symptomology Biopsychosocial model of Illness Pathogen OP sheep dip exposure Psychosocial Factors Stress Personality Fatigue Quality of Life Illness Non-specific symptoms Dippers’ flu New Approaches to Non-Specific Symptoms • Biopsychosocial approach could better explain other non-specific symptoms • Medical Disease model is limited 1. Possibility of no objective measurable diagnostic criteria 2. Contribution of many determinants of illness 3. Qualitative & Quantitative methods 4. Better acceptance among the physician community 5. Quality of Life developed as ill-health predictor Prevalence of Non-Specific Symptoms Symptom Prevalence % Stuffy nose 46.2 Headaches Tiredness Cough Itchy eyes Sore throat Skin rash Wheezing Respiratory Nausea Diarrhoea Vomiting 33.0 29.8 25.9 24.7 22.4 12.0 10.1 10.0 9.0 5.7 4.0 Heyworth & McCaul, 2001 Modern day complaints Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Sick Building Syndrome Gulf War Syndrome Low-level Chemical Exposure Electrical Sensitivity Historical complaints Railway Spine Neurasthenia Combat Syndrome New Approaches to Unexplained Symptoms Accept there may be no objectively measurable diagnostic criteria Accept contribution of many determinants of ill health Both quantitative and qualitative research methods needed Adjust our own mental models of accepting illness Quality of Life important as an “outcome” & “contributor” to illness UNDERSTANDING ISSUES CONCERNING QUALITY OF LIFE MAY RESULT IN EXPLANATIONS FOR SUCH SOMATIC SYMPTOM SYNDROMES