An Explanatory Model of Health Promotion and Quality of Life in Chronic Disabling Conditions

Abstract

The final model supports the hypothesis that quality of life is the outcome of a complex interplay among contextual factors (severity of illness), antecedent variables (Stuifbergen & Rogers, 1997), and health-promoting behaviors. The strength of direct and indirect paths suggests that interventions to enhance social support, decrease barriers, and increase specific self-efficacy for health behaviors would result in improved health-promoting behaviors and quality of life. Further research using a longitudinal design is needed to clarify the effects of the interaction between health-promoting behaviors and trajectory of illness on quality of life for persons with chronic disabling conditions.

Reliability and Validity of PROMIS Cognitive Abilities and Cognitive Concerns Scales Among People with Multiple Sclerosis

“…The CESD-10 has demonstrated good reliability and validity with various populations, including people with chronic and disabling conditions. 21,22 For this study, the Cronbach α coefficient of the CESD-10 was 0.85.…”

Adjustment to Life with Lung Cancer

“…Literature shows that a low level of illness acceptance may worsen one's health condition and increase disease progression [34,35]. In contrast, higher disease acceptance enhances one's motivation to improve one's wellbeing [36,37].…”

Item Development and Face Validity of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient Priorities in Pharmacological Interventions Outcome Measures

“…For three others this was their first contribution as a patient research partner, although they had attended a training day in preparation. The partners were sent a booklet containing visual analogue scales (VAS) or NRS found in the literature review [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] (Table 3) selected by the research team, or items or subscales from questionnaires where no VAS/NRS could be identified that assessed a similar notion in to that in the original interview data [15]. Not all scales or items identified in the literature were included.…”