The following lecture has been approved for University Undergraduate Students

1. 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

2. Work-Related Quality of Life Dr. Craig Jackson Senior Lecturer in Health Psychology Faculty of Health UCE Birmingham

3. Not The “Meaning” of Life . . .The “Quality”

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. “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

8. Subjectivity? There’s the catch

9. QoL is NOT . . . . . Being Happy Being disease free Feeling warm and fuzzy MULTIDIMENSIONAL Having money CONCEPT Driving that car Having a good job IT’S ALL OF THE ABOVE AND MORE . . .

10. 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 Mismatches Needs Opportunities Perceptions Pleasure Politics Possibilities Religion Safe Satisfaction Security Self-esteem Society Status Stress Truth Well-being Wishes Working Conditions

11. The 3 B’s Being Belonging Becoming

12. Quality of Life – Systems Models

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 1819 46% Generic measures scales 865 22% Dimension specific scales 690 18% Utility specific scales 409 15% Individualised scales 62 1% Garratt et al. 2002

16. 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 • Essentialto provide evidence of impact on patient in terms of • Healthstatus • Health-related quality of life

17. Traditional model of Disease Development Pathogen Disease(pathology) Modifiers Lifestyle Individual susceptibility

18. Biopsychosocial model of Illness Pathogen Illness (well-being) Psychosocial Factors Attitudes Behaviour Quality of Life

19. 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

20. 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

21. Why use QoL as an Outcome? Pain Fatigue Broader impacts of ILLNESS & TREATMENT Disability Physical Emotional Social “Well-being” Subjectivityof Quality Broader impacts need to be assessed and reported by thepatient Patient Assessed Measures

22. 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

23. Generic QoL Assessment Self Evaluation of Quality of Life (Danish EQoL) 308 questions! Good collection of demographic / prognostics data essential: AgeSex Height Weight Marital status Domestic Residence Housing Education Occupation Income Goods Circumstances Lifestyle Exercise Smoking Social network Friends Eating Alcohol Drugs Symptoms Health Sexuality Self- Perception Life-Perception Satisfaction Need-Fulfilment Ethnicity

24. Disease Specific QoL Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( SS-QOL) 49 items Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly agree agree agree disagree 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

25. Disease Specific QoL Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( SS-QOL) 49 items 12 domains covered Mobility Energy Physiology Upper Extremity Function Medical Vision Personality Mood Psychology Language Cognitive Thinking Self-care Social roles Activity Family Roles Social Work / Productivity

26. Methodological Problems of QoL • Numerous measuresof QoL in some specialties • Little standardisation • Two prerequisites for standardisation • Primary researchthrough concurrent evaluation of measures • Secondary researchthrough structured reviews of measures • Recommendations from such QoL scales may not be simple to use clinically

27. 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

28. Psych / Perceptual Process of Illness Internal Process “Do I notice internal changes?” “Should I interpret them negatively?” “Should I think they are important?” External processes “Do I notice external sources?” “What should I believe about it?” “What should I do about it?” MENTAL SCHEMA Internal representation of the world (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs) What do we believe about health? What do we believe affects health?

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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?

32. 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)

33. The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

34. The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

35. The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

36. Headaches Anxiety Fatigue Depression Dippers’ Flu Memory loss Concentration General malaise “Unexplained Symptom Syndrome” The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

37. The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

38. 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

39. Some Short Term Effects Exposed Farmers Control Subjects General cramp Sneezing Headache Cough Shiver Runny eyes Weak muscles Stiff muscles Sleep walking General ache Cognitive problems Pins and needles Judging distance Buzzing ears Numb toes Itchy skin Nose bleeds Flaky skin Earache Trouble sleeping Fever Flushes Aggression General weakness Coughing blood Jackson et al. 2001

40. 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

41. 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 *

42. More Complicated Than Just OP Exposure Jackson et al. 2001

43. 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

44. Mental Health Problems of Sheep Farmers Satisfaction with Agricultural Life (SAL) Perceived Fatigue Reflective Personality Anxiety Depression Stressful Life Events Agricultural Dissatisfaction Handling Sheep <48hrs post-dip Increased Symptomology Jackson et al. 2003

45. Biopsychosocial model of Illness Pathogen OP sheep dip exposure Illness Non-specific symptoms Dippers’ flu Psychosocial Factors Stress Personality Fatigue Quality of Life

46. 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

47. 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 Symptom Prevalence % Stuffy nose 46.2 Headaches 33.0 Tiredness 29.8 Cough 25.9 Itchy eyes 24.7 Sore throat 22.4 Skin rash 12.0 Wheezing 10.1 Respiratory 10.0 Nausea 9.0 Diarrhoea 5.7 Vomiting 4.0 Heyworth & McCaul, 2001 Prevalence of Non-Specific Symptoms

48. 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