Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Implicit self-comparisons against others could bias quality of life assessments

By Peter Fayers, Anne L. Langston and Clare Robertson


Objectives: To explore how patient-reported health related quality of life (HRQL) and global health status are affected by use of differing personal reference frames. We hypothesised that implicit comparisons against self at an earlier time, against healthy peers or against ill patients would greatly affect patients’ response values. Study design and setting: Patients in a randomised trial for treatment of Paget’s disease completed annual HRQL questionnaires. Supplementary questions were appended, asking the patients whether they were aware of having made implicit comparisons. Results: The majority of patients reported considering themselves a year ago (31% at baseline), themselves before becoming ill (23%) or other healthy people (24%), with similar proportions during follow up. Mean HRQL scores varied substantially according to the declared frame of reference, with differences as big as 19% of the scale score, or a standardised mean effect size of 0.74 standard deviations. Conclusion: Reported reference frames were associated with effects of similar magnitude to the differences in HRQL that are regarded as clinically important. This may be of particular concern in trials that andomise patients to management in different settings, such as treatment at home / in hospital, or surgery / chemotherapy, and might bias or obscure HRQL differences

Topics: Bias, Quality of Life, Self Assessment (Psychology)
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2005). Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications;
  2. (1992). Direct questioning about comprehension in a survey setting. In: Tanur J. Questions about Questions.
  3. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology.
  4. (2001). General subjective health status or age-related subjective health status: does it make a difference? Soc Sci Med
  5. (2005). Global self-rated health data from a longitudinal study predicted mortality better than comparative self-rated health in old age.
  6. (2005). Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychology
  7. (2001). Quality of life after spinal cord injury: A Qualitative Study. Rehab Psychol
  8. (1997). Quality of life in oncology practice: prognostic value of EORTC QLQC30 scores in patients with advanced malignancy.
  9. (2001). Quality of life in palliative cancer care. Results from a cluster randomized trial.
  10. (1984). Self-rated health and its relation to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in Southern Germany. Results from the MONICA Augsburg cohort study,
  11. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies.
  12. (1996). Self-rated health: a useful concept in research, prevention and clinical medicine.
  13. (2001). Self-rated health. Comparisons between three different measures. Results from a population study.
  14. (1996). Social comparison and the subjective wellbeing of cancer patients.
  15. (2003). The effect of point of reference on the association between self-ratings health and mortality. Soc Sci Med
  16. (2002). The relevance of social coomparison processes for prevention and health care. Patient Education and Counseling
  17. (2002). Understanding self-rated health. Lancet
  18. (1999). What has been learned from measuring health-related quality of life in clinical oncology?
  19. (2005). What is perfect health to an 85-year-old? Evidence for scale recalibration in subjective health ratings. Medical Care

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.