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

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

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

Getting There Slowly..... “There is surely a place for research into psychological interventions that improve quality of life for patients after diagnosis or treatment. 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

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

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

“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

Subjectivity? There’s the catch

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...

AbilityAdaptationAppreciation 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 PoliticsPossibilities Religion Safe Satisfaction Security Self-esteem Society Status Stress Truth Well-being Wishes Working Conditions QoL may be...

The 3 B’s BeingBelongingBecoming

Quality of Life – Systems Models

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

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

Popularity of QoL measures 800 articles in BMJ since papers concern QoL (17%) 1275 different scales of QoL 144 in in 1999 increase of 450% Disease / Population specific scales % Generic measures scales % Dimension specific scales % Utility specific scales % Individualised scales 62 1% Garratt et al. 2002

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 Essential to provide evidence of impact on patient in terms of (i)Health status (ii)Health-related quality of life

Pathogen Disease (pathology) ModifiersLifestyle Individual susceptibility Traditional model of Disease Development

Pathogen Psychosocial Factors AttitudesBehaviour Quality of Life Illness (well-being) Biopsychosocial model of Illness

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

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

Why use QoL as an Outcome? Pain Fatigue Broader impacts of ILLNESS & TREATMENT Disability PhysicalEmotional Social “Well-being” “Well-being” Subjectivity of Quality Broader impacts need to be assessed and reported by the patient Patient Assessed Measures

QoL as a Widespread Outcome Reduced Quality of Life observed as outcome in many conditions: Child sexual abuseDickinson et al Chronic hep. c Koff, 1999 Rheumatoid arthritisStrombeck et al FibromyalgiaStrombeck et al Multiple sclerosisShawaryn et al ObesitySturm et al AsthmaHyland et al. 1995

Generic QoL Assessment Self Evaluation of Quality of Life (Danish EQoL) 308 questions! Good collection of demographic / prognostics data essential: AgeSexHeightWeightMarital statusDomestic ResidenceHousingEducationOccupationIncome GoodsCircumstancesLifestyleExerciseSmoking Social networkFriendsEatingAlcoholDrugs SymptomsHealthSexualitySelf- Perception Life-PerceptionSatisfactionNeed-FulfilmentEthnicity

Disease Specific QoL Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( SS-QOL) 49 items StronglyModeratelyNeitherModeratelyStrongly agreeagreeagreedisagreedisagree 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

Disease Specific QoL Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale ( SS-QOL) 49 items 12 domains coveredMobility EnergyPhysiology Upper Extremity Function Medical VisionPersonality MoodPsychology Language Cognitive ThinkingSelf-care Social rolesActivity Family Roles Social Work / Productivity

Methodological Problems of QoL Numerous measures of QoL in some specialties Little standardisation Two prerequisites for standardisation 1.Primary research through concurrent evaluation of measures 2.Secondary research through structured reviews of measures Recommendations from such QoL scales may not be simple to use clinically

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

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?

OVER FOCUS ON SYMPTOMS ComparisonsAttributionsResponsesBlamePessimism Factors Influencing Symptom Development Selective Internal Attention Tedious & un-stimulating environment Tedious & un-stimulating environment Little communication Stressful environment Little communication Stressful environment Learned behaviours “Negative Affectivity” Learned behaviours “Negative Affectivity”

Factors Influencing Symptom Development Selective External Attention  Heightened concern about risk involuntary involuntary uncontrolled uncontrolled lack of information lack of information dreaded consequences 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 ComparisonsAttributionsResponsesBlamePessimism

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?

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 AnxietyDepressionFatigueAches & Pains HeadacheFever Neurobehavioural problems (memory, concentration)

The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

HeadachesAnxietyFatigue Depression Dippers’ Flu Memory loss Concentration General malaise “Unexplained Symptom Syndrome” The UK Sheep Dipping Saga

No Chronic Effects Ever Found Symptoms should be acute & reversible, NOT chronic Symptoms should be acute & reversible, NOT chronic Bio monitoring suggests symptoms should NOT occur Bio monitoring suggests symptoms should NOT occur No good evidence of chronic effects (except after severe intoxication) No good evidence of chronic effects (except after severe intoxication) No reliable pattern to the symptoms reported No reliable pattern to the symptoms reported No pathological changes observed No pathological changes observed

Some Short Term Effects Exposed FarmersControl Subjects General crampSneezing HeadacheCough ShiverRunny eyes Weak musclesStiff muscles Sleep walkingGeneral ache Cognitive problemsPins and needles Judging distanceBuzzing ears Numb toesItchy skin Nose bleedsFlaky skin EaracheTrouble sleeping FeverFlushes Aggression General weakness Coughing blood Jackson et al. 2001

Farmers’ ResponseGovernment Response Seek media exposureInitially deny any effects Seek media exposureInitially deny any effects Pressure groups formed Commission research Pressure groups formed Commission research Support groups formed Organize committees / reviews Support groups formed Organize committees / reviews Search for “medicalisation”Question research results Search for “medicalisation”Question research results Search for compensationMinor policy decisions Search for compensationMinor policy decisions Commission more research The Fall Out Begins

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 *

More Complicated Than Just OP Exposure Jackson et al. 2001

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

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

Pathogen OP sheep dip exposure Psychosocial Factors StressPersonalityFatigue Quality of Life Illness Non-specific symptoms Dippers’ flu Biopsychosocial model of Illness

New Approaches to Non-Specific Symptoms Biopsychosocial approach could better explain other non-specific symptoms Biopsychosocial approach could better explain other non-specific symptoms Medical Disease model is limited 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

Prevalence of Non-Specific Symptoms 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 SymptomPrevalence % Stuffy nose46.2 Headaches33.0 Tiredness29.8 Cough25.9 Itchy eyes24.7 Sore throat22.4 Skin rash12.0 Wheezing10.1 Respiratory10.0 Nausea9.0 Diarrhoea5.7 Vomiting4.0 Heyworth & McCaul, 2001

New Approaches to Unexplained Symptoms n Accept there may be no objectively measurable diagnostic criteria n Accept contribution of many determinants of ill health n Both quantitative and qualitative research methods needed n Adjust our own mental models of accepting illness n 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