Assessing hospitalized patients' quality of life from external indices: the perspectives of lay people and health professionals.

PURPOSE: We examined the way people assess hospitalized patients' quality of life from what they immediately observe when entering the patient's room, from what they learn by conversing with the patient, and from what they know about the patient's social life. METHODS: A sample of 474 adults (among them 7 physicians, 57 nurses, and 42 nurse's aides) aged 18-90 years was presented with 54 realistic scenarios depicting the situation of a terminally ill patient, and created by orthogonally combining the levels of four factors: chronic pain (e.g., requiring powerful painkillers), social support (e.g., some visits), mental status (e.g., alterations of consciousness), and physical autonomy. In each case, they assessed the patient's health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Through cluster analysis, three different positions related to what is important when judging the quality of life of a hospitalized patient were found. They were labeled Almost Always Low (40%), Depends on Personal and Social Circumstances (49%), and Depends Mainly on Social Support (11%). Health professionals did not differ fundamentally from lay people in their positions regarding what determines the health-related quality of life of their patients. CONCLUSION: Many people take a particularly pessimistic view of the quality of life of people whose health is unlikely to improve. Others think that, in certain circumstances, a certain quality of life can be preserved but for this to happen, the situation must be nearly ideal. A minority expressed a position consistent with the insistence of voluntary patient-visiting associations on the importance of providing hospitalized patients with social support.

Mapping and comparing French people's positions regarding restrictive control policies: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Public authorities resort to various control policies in order to curb the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors. As these policies can only succeed to the extent that people agree with them, this study mapped French people's positions regarding restrictive control policies in general. METHOD: A sample of 344 adults (among them health professionals and lawyers) were presented with 54 vignettes depicting a control policy. Each vignette contained four pieces of information: the type of addictive behavior targeted (smoking, drinking, or gambling), the nature of preventive measures (e.g., information campaigns), the degree of regulative measures (e.g., prohibition to minors), and the severity of sanctions. RESULTS: Through cluster analysis, eight qualitatively different positions were found: Never acceptable (9%), Weak or moderate regulation (5%), Moderate regulation associated with strong prevention (11%), Strong or moderate regulation (11%), Strong regulation in association with strong prevention (23%), Moderate sanctions in association with strong prevention and moderate regulation (9%), Severe sanctions (9%), and Always acceptable (9%). Some participants (14%) expressed no opinion at all. CONCLUSION: French people's positions regarding control policies were extremely diverse. Regarding tobacco, however, one type of policy would likely be supported by a majority of people: Moderate regulation associated with at least a moderate level of prevention and low-level sanctions. Regarding alcohol, an acceptable position would be: Moderate regulation associated with at least a moderate level of prevention and high-level sanctions. Regarding gambling, an acceptable position would be: Strong regulation associated with at least a moderate level of prevention and low-level sanctions.