Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties
Keetharuth, Anju Devianee; Brazier, John; Connell, Janice; Bjorner, Jakob Bue; Carlton, Jill; Buck, Elizabeth Taylor; Ricketts, Thomas; McKendrick, Kirsty; Browne, John; Croudace, Tim; Barkham, Michael
Date:
2018
Copyright:
© 2018, The Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation:
Keetharuth, A. D., Brazier, J., Connell, J., Bjorner, J. B., Carlton, J., Taylor Buck, E., Ricketts, T., McKendrick, K., Browne, J., Croudace, T. and Barkham, M. (2018) 'Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties', British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(1), pp. 42-49. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2017.10
Abstract:
Background: Outcome measures for mental health services need to adopt a service-user recovery focus. Aims To develop and validate a 10- and 20-item self-report recovery-focused quality of life outcome measure named Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). Method: Qualitative methods for item development and initial testing, and quantitative methods for item reduction and scale construction were used. Data from >6500 service users were factor analysed and item response theory models employed to inform item selection. The measures were tested for reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results ReQoL-10 and ReQoL-20 contain positively and negatively worded items covering seven themes: activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, well-being, autonomy, and physical health. Both versions achieved acceptable internal consistency, test-retest reliability (>0.85), known-group differences, convergence with related measures, and were responsive over time (standardised response mean (SRM) >0.4). They performed marginally better than the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale and markedly better than the EQ-5D. Conclusions: Both versions are appropriate for measuring service-user recovery-focused quality of life outcomes.
Show full item record
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2018, The Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.