Is There an “Inspiration” of Qol in the Field of Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry?

Abstract

This article discusses the concept of quality of life (QoL) and its use in clinical psychology and psychiatry. It notes that QoL is widely used as an indicator of the success of health and welfare programmes and as an outcome measure in clinical trials, yet there is still no single, universally accepted definition: the concept is multidimensional, ambiguous and defined differently across research fields. The article traces the shift from a paternalistic conception towards one centred on the individual's autonomy and subjective experience, and outlines Schalock and Verdugo's eight factors mediating QoL perceptions. It argues that QoL is subjective and must be evaluated from the patient's perspective, and that it should not be equated with health status or health-related quality of life, since people with the same condition may judge their lives very differently. The author observes that many measures applied to people with mental disorders were developed in general health care, that the wrong choice of instrument can have negative consequences for assessments, and that the proliferation of newer measures suggests none meets the needs of most researchers and clinicians. The article concludes that an “inspiration” of QoL is not enough: its evaluation requires conceptualisation and operationalisation through validated instruments, or the term risks becoming a vague label without scientific value.

Abstract prepared by the editorial office from the full text of the article; the authors did not supply one.