Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Assessing psychosocial/quality of life outcomes in screening: how do we do it better?
  1. John Brodersen1,
  2. Hanne Thorsen1,
  3. Stephen McKenna1,
  4. Lynda Doward1
  1. 1University of Copenhagen, Denmark and Galen Research, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr J Brodersen
 University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, Copenhagen 2200N, Denmark;

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with interest McCaffery and Barratt’s editorial on assessing psychosocial and quality of life outcomes in screening.1 We agree that it is necessary to show greater concern about the reliability and validity of outcome measures used but would also argue that it is equally as important to be clear about which outcomes are being assessed and how outcome data should be analysed and interpreted.

In their study Marteau and colleagues selected five items from a generic measure of health status (the SF-36).2 No explanation was given of why these particular items were selected, why they should be added together, what the label “self assessed health” actually means, or why it was relevant to the study. The five items clearly assess more than one construct. The item asking for a rating of health is a measure of impairment while the other four assess health beliefs that may have no relation …

View Full Text