What New Zealanders find important to their quality of life: comparisons with international WHOQOL data from 14 other countries

Abstract

Objective: When the World Health Organization Quality of Life tools were developed by 15 collaborating centres in 14 countries, respondents rated how important they considered various facets of health-related quality of life. The present study compared quality of life importance ratings from New Zealanders with the global data collected 17 years earlier. Possible differences by gender and age were also explored. Methods:A WHOQOL importance questionnaire was posted to a random sample of 2,000 New Zealanders. The ratings from the 585 questionnaires that were returned were ranked in order of importance and compared with the rankings from the original WHOQOL work. Results:The overall pattern of rankings of importance items was strikingly similar to that of the global data. Some of the few differences included comparatively lower importance ratings by New Zealanders of the facet to be able to work and higher ratings of feeling physically safe and secure. Other differences in importance ratings were also noted by gender and age group. Conclusions:The overall high similarities of importance rankings with the global dataset suggest that the cross-cultural validity of the instrument may still be current. The few observed differences could reflect aspects unique to New Zealand or the presence of global trends during the 17 years since the original WHOQOL work, highlighting the utility of periodic investigations into the need to update the instrument.

Ordinal-To-Interval Scale Conversion Tables and National Items for the New Zealand Version of the WHOQOL-BREF

“…For 18 items, there were significant differences in rating by age, and for 36 items there were gender differences. WHOQOL importance ratings are known to be different by these demographic variables [17], and in this case no particular pattern was evident. The main criterion applied to reduce the number of items was that mean ratings were at least 4, or when close to 4 that the median was 4.…”

“…The range of the mean importance ratings of the 46 importance items (3.07 to 4.61) that were derived from the focus group themes was comparable with that of the existing WHOQOL items, which was 3.09 to 4.50 [17]. Nevertheless, stringent criteria were applied for the selection of candidate national items even if that meant discarding items with importance ratings that were higher than some of the ratings of the existing WHOQOL items.…”

“…Detailed information about recruitment and the participants is presented elsewhere [17]. Using a random sample of the general population, 2,000 questionnaires were posted by mail with a pre-paid return envelope.…”

“…Importance ratings of the existing WHOQOL items were published elsewhere [17] and will not be presented here. Krägeloh et al [17] compared WHOQOL importance ratings of New Zealanders with ratings from participants in Australia and other countries around the world.…”

“…Krägeloh et al [17] compared WHOQOL importance ratings of New Zealanders with ratings from participants in Australia and other countries around the world. The present study focuses on importance ratings of the 46 items generated in Study 1 and how a final set of candidate items was selected for further testing.…”