The Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) Scale: Validation of a French Cross-Cultural Adaptation

Abstract

French

Objective:

The goal of this study was to validate the French version of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) scale, a condition-specific measure for bipolar disorder (BD).

Method:

The QoL.BD scale was translated into French in accordance with the recommendations for transcultural adaptation. It was administered to 125 participants with BD living in Quebec, Canada. Construct validity was evaluated through correlations with other measures of self-reported quality of life (QoL), functioning, and symptoms. Factorial structure was examined through an exploratory factor analysis.

Results:

Internal reliability and test–retest reliability standards were met. Correlations in expected directions with other QoL, functioning, and depressive symptom scales supported convergent validity. The item loadings structure of the French QoL.BD largely replicated the original English version, with some modifications.

Conclusion:

The French version of the QoL.BD (full and brief) is comparable in its psychometric properties to the English version. It is a valid and sound measure for the evaluation of the QoL of French-speaking patients with BD.

Keywords

bipolar disorder measurement quality of life cross-cultural adaptation

Introduction

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mental health condition characterized by the experience of periods of mania (defined by extreme elation, expansiveness, and/or irritability, coupled with increased goal-directed activity) and depression. Internationally, the lifetime prevalence of BD has been estimated to be between 1% and 2%¹ and has been ranked by the World Health Organization as at 5th leading cause of disease burden among mental disorders.² Quality of life (QoL) instruments are increasingly used in BD research to assess a person’s functioning and satisfaction across a broad range of life domains.^3,4 Until 2010, studies of BD exclusively used generic instruments to assess QoL—while these assess areas of life considered to be important to the general population, they may not capture the particular priorities of individuals living with BD.^5,6 QoL instruments developed to assess domains impacted by a specific condition have been shown to be more responsive than generic tools^7,8 and are less likely to demonstrate “floor effects.”⁹ As such, an important step forward in the BD QoL field was the development of the English-language version of the condition-specific Quality of Life in BD (QoL.BD) scale.¹⁰ The QoL.BD was developed in consultation with individuals with lived experience of BD and assesses the cardinal impacts of BD symptoms (mood, sleep, physical health, cognition), role functioning (household management, finances, and two optional areas: work and education), and expressions of satisfaction and well-being (including the domains of leisure, relationships, self-esteem, spirituality, identity, and independence). When evaluated in a sample of English-speaking people living with BD in Canada, both the full 56-item and brief 12-item versions of the QoL.BD have demonstrated excellent internal reliability (0.79 to 0.95), appropriate test–retest reliability (0.46 to 0.87), and satisfactory construct validity when compared to other QoL measures⁷. Factor analysis on the core items (i.e., not including the optional work and study domains) supported a 12-domain structure. The QoL.BD has seen widespread use in clinical trials internationally,^11

–16 has been translated in over 20 languages, and has a validated web-based administration format.¹⁷ Furthermore, the QoL.BD is ideally suited for case formulation and outcome assessment in clinical practice: A suite of self-management tools that address the QoL domains have been developed and evaluated,^18,19 and the full version of the instrument takes only 4 minutes to administer.⁷

A number of Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) grants have been granted to support the development of psychosocial interventions for BD incorporating the QoL.BD.^18,19 However, the lack of a validated French translation limits the ability to disseminate these interventions and findings across Canada, as well as internationally. This marks a significant limitation, given that 22% of the Canadian population report French as their first language.²⁰ It cannot be assumed that a direct translation of the QoL.BD will adequately represent QoL for a French-speaking population: For instance, given France is the 4th most secular country,²¹ QoL as related to spirituality may be conceptualized differently. In light of the cultural differences that can pertain to a French-speaking population, the goal of this study was to perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the QoL.BD in French and to explore the psychometric properties of the full and brief French versions of the QoL.BD.

Methods

Procedures

Cross-cultural adaptation

Following the recommendations of Guillemin et al.,²² the translation of the questionnaire from English to French was done by two professional French-speaking translators. Then, a blind back-translation was done by two professional English-speaking translators. Next, a final version was reviewed by a committee of experts consisting of the developer of the English version of the scale, two bilingual researchers specializing in BD research and care, a bilingual patient with BD, and a bilingual facilitator. The wording of some items was revised to more appropriately embody the intent of the original QoL.BD scale in a French-speaking population. For example, the committee member with lived experience of BD suggested that the initial literal translation of the first item of the physical domain, “I have had plenty of energy” to “J’ai eu beaucoup d’énergie,” conveyed a sense of excessive (and potentially, clinically concerning) levels of energy. On the basis of this feedback, the item wording was changed to “suffisamment” to convey an appropriate level of energy for the individual’s needs.

The revised version was then field tested with a sample of 17 patients with BD residing in Paris, Geneva, and Montreal. Some pilot study participants reported difficulty responding to items assessing subjective, personal concepts (particularly in the identity, spirituality, and independence domains); further minor modifications were made to improve the clarity of these items. The final version of the full and brief scales is presented in Online Appendices 1 and 2, respectively.

Psychometric evaluation

One hundred and twenty-five participants (age 18 to 70) who had been diagnosed with BD of any type (I, II, nonspecified) were recruited in various hospitals in the province of Quebec. The project was approved by the research ethics committees of the hospitals concerned. Through the hospitals’ archives service, a letter introducing the project was sent to participants who had been identified by their consulting psychiatrist as having a diagnosis of BD. The letter enquired about their interest in participating in the project and asked for permission to be contacted by the research team. The French version of the QoL.BD was then sent by mail to those who consented to be contacted and again 2 weeks later in order to evaluate its test–retest reliability. Recruitment occurred between October 2014 and June 2015.

In total, 489 invitations were sent. One hundred and thirty-six participants agreed to receive the questionnaire and provided written informed consent, 125 returned the first set of questionnaires, and 114 returned the second set of questionnaires (see Table 1 for participant characteristics).

Table 1.

Descriptive and Clinical Characteristics of the Sample.

Clinical and Demographic Characteristics	% (n)
Sex
Female	71.2 (89)
Age
18 to 30	4.0 (5)
30 to 50	33.6 (42)
50 to 70	62.4 (78)
Education
Primary or secondary school	26.4 (33)
College or university	64.8 (81)
Other	8.8 (11)
Marital status
Married	43.2 (54)
Single	56.8 (71)
Work status
Employed	37.1 (46)
Volunteer	4.8 (6)
Sick leave/disability/unemployed	24.2 (30)
Retired/at home	33.9 (42)
Current symptoms
ASRM	M = 4.06, SD = 3.63
PHQ-9	M = 8.95, SD = 6.67
Psychiatric comorbidities
No self-reported comorbidities	69.4 (86)
Number of previous hospitalizations
0	11.8 (14)
1 to 2	42.9 (51)
3 to 5	26.1 (31)
6 to 10	13.5 (16)
More than 10	5.7 (7)
Active psychosocial interventions (psychotherapy, occupational therapy, hospital day program, psychoeducational groups)	65.6% (82)
Self-reported instances of missed medication
Often or occasionally	8 (10)
Rarely, never, or n/a	92 (113)

Note. N = 125.

Measures

The French version of the full (56 item) and the brief (12 item) Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) scale was administered. The long version is divided into 14 domains: Physical, Sleep, Mood, Cognition, Leisure, Social, Spirituality, Finances, Household, Self-esteem, Independence, Identity, Work (optional), and Education (optional). Each domain has 4 items, and each item is scored on Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). A global score can be calculated by summing scores for all items in the core 12 domains (range: 48 to 240). The brief version contains one item assessing each of the 12 core domains and is scored by summing responses to all items (range: 12 to 60).

To evaluate construct validity, the French versions of the following self-reported QoL and functioning measures were administered: the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire—Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF)²³; the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36)²⁴; the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-Bref)²⁵; and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS-2.0).²⁶ Self-reported depression was assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9),²⁷ and the Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale (ASRM)²⁸ was used to assess self-reported symptoms of hypomania.

Statistical Analyses

All analyses were done using version 9.4 of the SAS/STAT program. To evaluate reliability and construct validity, missing data were handled using domain-specific mean-score imputation. For the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), participants with missing data (n = 17) were excluded from the analyses.

For each QoL.BD domain, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated as the measure of internal reliability with a minimal reference value of 0.70.²⁹ The construct validity was evaluated via Pearson correlations with the Q-LES-Q-SF, SF-36, WHOQOL-Bref, WHODAS-2.0, PHQ-9, and ASRM. Test–retest reliability was evaluated for each domain by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the initial administration of the QoL.BD and 2-week follow-up.

An EFA was conducted in SAS using the maximum likelihood method followed by an oblique (oblim) rotation using the FACTOR procedure. EFAs were conducted on (a) the 12 basic domains of the QoL.BD and (b) the Brief QoL.BD. For the EFA conducted on the 12 basic domains, a fixed number of factors (12) were extracted based on theoretical and pragmatic grounds. First, the qualitative interviews and literature review informing the original QoL.BD provide theoretical support for a 12 distinct, core domains relevant to QoL in BD. Second, CIHR-supported interventions have been developed based on the original QoL.BD structure; preserving the original structure of the QoL.BD where possible will support translation of these interventions in a French-speaking population. Similarly, for the Brief QoL.BD, one factor was extracted on theoretical and pragmatic grounds. Interpretability of the extracted factors was evaluated by examining primary factor loadings and cross-loadings greater than 0.32.³⁰

Results

Internal Reliability and Test–Retest Reliability

The majority of the instrument’s 14 domains showed good internal reliability, with all but the Physical domain (α = 0.67) exceeding the minimal acceptable Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.70. The ICCs of the domains scores and the total score for the brief version were relatively good (with ICCs between 0.54 and 0.75) and is similar to that of the English version (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the 14 Subscales of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) Scale.

Subscale	Mean (SD)	Cronbach’s Alpha (T1)	Test–Retest Reliability (ICC)
Physical	11.05 (3.4)	0.67	0.64
Sleep	12.62 (3.92)	0.81	0.67
Mood	13.80 (3.73)	0.90	0.63
Cognition	13.66 (3.61)	0.80	0.69
Leisure	13.47 (4.53)	0.92	0.65
Social	14.91 (3.31)	0.79	0.54
Spirituality	13.13 (4.53)	0.96	0.61
Finances	14.21 (4.69)	0.92	0.73
Household	13.87 (4.07)	0.94	0.65
Self-esteem	14.88 (3.53)	0.85	0.73
Independence	16.02 (16.02)	0.78	0.59
Identity	14.62 (3.88)	0.90	0.71
Work (n = 60)	16.47 (3.46)	0.93	0.60
Education (n = 14)	14.93 (4.63)	0.88	0.75
Total Brief QoL.BD	41.89 (8.81)	0.88	0.73

Note. SD = standard deviation; T1 = time 1; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; Work and Education = Optional Domains.

Construct Validity

The correlations between QoL.BD domain scores and the Brief QoL.BD total score to other self-reported QoL measures were strongly positive, especially with the WHOQOL-Bref total score (0.87), the Q-LES-Q-SF (0.86), and the general mental health score (GMH) of the SF-36 (0.71). Moreover, the correlations with the WHODAS-2.0 were negative (−0.61); a high score on this scale reflects poorer functioning. Correlations between Brief QoL.BD total scores and symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) were strongly negative (−0.74); a weak (0.25) but significant correlation between symptoms of hypomania (ASRM) was observed, suggesting that self-reported hypomania was associated with slightly better subjective QoL (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Quality of Life, Mood, and Symptom Correlates of Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) Scale.

	SF-36		WHOQOL-Bref
QoL.BD Subscale	GPH	GMH	Physical	Psychological	Social	Environment	Total	Q-LES-Q-SF	WHODAS 2.0	PHQ-9	ASRM
Physical	0.56	0.61	0.67	0.68	0.63	0.60	0.77	0.75	−0.58	−0.66	0.23
Sleep	0.33	0.50	0.49	0.45	0.33	0.36	0.50	0.44	−0.40	−0.60	0.03^a
Mood	0.37	0.64	0.52	0.67	0.57	0.52	0.68	0.69	−0.45	−0.63	0.29
Cognition	0.46	0.60	0.62	0.69	0.54	0.50	0.70	0.67	−0.54	−0.63	0.16^a
Leisure	0.47	0.53	0.53	0.61	0.56	0.55	0.67	0.68	−0.48	−0.59	0.27
Social	0.37	0.53	0.49	0.56	0.64	0.52	0.65	0.67	−0.47	−0.49	0.21
Spirituality	0.12^a	0.41	0.26	0.56	0.41	0.39	0.48	0.41	−0.23	−0.43	0.09^a
Finances	0.23	0.40	0.40	0.39	0.47	0.61	0.56	0.59	−0.28	−0.45	0.06^a
Household	0.42	0.49	0.58	0.44	0.35	0.38	0.54	0.59	−0.46	−0.52	0.18
Self-esteem	0.43	0.54	0.51	0.69	0.49	0.64	0.71	0.70	−0.53	−0.63	0.26
Independence	0.46	0.52	0.52	0.59	0.57	0.66	0.69	0.69	−0.58	−0.54	0.26
Identity	0.39	0.57	0.52	0.70	0.52	0.60	0.71	0.72	−0.48	−0.64	0.27
Work	0.39	0.45	0.63	0.45	0.36	0.32	0.57	0.56	−0.49	−0.45	0.04^a
Education	0.61	0.38^a	0.66	0.64	0.72	0.65	0.73	0.69	−0.47^a	−0.34^a	−0.01^a
Brief QoL.BD	0.51	0.71	0.69	0.79	0.67	0.70	0.87	0.86	−0.61	−0.74	0.25

Note. SF-36 = 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form; GPH = General Physical Health; GMH = General Mental Health; WHOQOL-Bref = World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF; Q-LES-Q-SF = Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire–Short Form; WHODAS = World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire 9; ASRM = Altman Self-rating Mania Scale; Work and Education = Optional Domains. All P values are < 0.05 unless specified otherwise.

^a Nonsignificant.

EFA

The factorability of the data was confirmed: Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant χ²(1128) = 4,857.9, P < 0.0001; and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling was 0.87, exceeding the recommended minimum value of 0.6.³⁰ Based on theoretical grounds and in order to explore the performance of the factor structure identified in the English version, a model with 12 factors was extracted for the full QoL.BD. Primary and cross-loadings above 0.32 are shown in Table 4. Items predominantly displayed primary loadings on the same factor as the original English validation study. Spirituality, Finances, and Household were strongly and clearly represented (with item loadings between 0.58 and 0.99). Mood was also well replicated, but with weaker loadings, between 0.47 and 0.72. Cognition, Independence, Self-esteem, and Social were likewise well replicated, with some slight modifications. The most notable change in factor loadings occurred over the Physical domain: Two physical items were observed to weakly load onto a factor with leisure items (0.32 to 0.45), and 2 physical item (“I have been content with my sex life”/“J’ai été satisfait(e) de ma vie sexuelle”; “I have had plenty of energy”/“J’ai eu suffisamment d’energie”) did not load strongly on any factor. Item loadings for the Brief QoL.BD ranged from 0.42 to 0.83, replicating the structure of the original English version (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Primary and Cross Loadings for the French-language Version of the Full QoL.BD.

Item/Factor	Physical	Sleep	Mood	Cognition	Leisure	Social	Spirituality	Finance	House-hold	Self-esteem	Independence	Identity
Physical 1
Physical 2					0.45
Physical 3					0.32
Physical 4
Sleep 1		0.41
Sleep 2		0.45
Sleep 3	0.72
Sleep 4	0.94
Mood 1			0.72
Mood 2			0.47
Mood 3			0.54
Mood 4			0.60
Cognition 1			0.51	0.33
Cognition 2				0.55
Cognition 3				0.62
Cognition 4					0.34
Leisure 1					0.76
Leisure 2					0.90
Leisure 3					0.86
Leisure 4					0.53
Social 1					0.50	0.32
Social 2					0.33	0.37
Social 3			0.36			0.48
Social 4	0.32
Spirituality 1							0.90
Spirituality 2							0.99
Spirituality 3							0.95
Spirituality 4							0.89
Finance 1								0.86
Finance 2								0.97
Finance 3								0.87
Finance 4								0.58
Household 1									0.86
Household 2									0.81
Household 3									0.93
Household 4									0.88
Self-esteem 1										0.49
Self-esteem 2										0.70
Self-esteem 3										0.34		0.32
Self-esteem 4												0.63
Independence 1												0.45
Independence 2											0.59
Independence 3											0.32
Independence 4			0.39
Identity 1												0.59
Identity 2												0.59
Identity 3												0.70
Identity 4												0.57
Brief QoL.BD	0.70	0.67	0.83	0.67	0.73	0.73	0.49	0.37	0.48	0.66	0.42	0.64

Note. Primary and cross loadings above 0.32 were retained. Cross loadings are indicated in italics. Items and factors are arranged according to the original factor structure proposed in the English version.

Discussion

The results obtained allow us to conclude that the French translation of the QoL.BD is a reliable and valid measure of QoL in French speakers living with BD. As with the original English version,¹⁰ the internal reliability (0.67 to 0.96) and test–retest reliability (0.54 to 0.75) met appropriate standards, and the correlations between the subscales of the QoL.BD and the subscales of complimentary non-condition-specific QoL measures (i.e., SF-36, WHOQOL-Bref, Q-LES-Q-SF) were moderate to high. Overall, the item loadings of the French version were comparable to that of the English version for both the full and brief versions, with some slight modifications.

The psychometric properties described in this study accord with the findings of other cross-cultural adaptations of the QoL.BD, including the Chilean Spanish³¹ translation of the full scale, and the Chinese³² and Iranian³³ adaptations of the Brief QoL.BD. Internal reliability is excellent across the various formats of the brief QoL.BD, varying between 0.82 for the Chinese version and 0.88 for the French version. The test–retest reliability is also good, varying between 0.69 for the English version and 0.81 for the Chinese version. The correlations of the various Brief QoL.BD adaptations with other QoL scales are consistently moderate to high, varying between 0.31 and 0.71 for the SF-36 and between 0.41 and 0.89 for the Q-LES-Q. Importantly, these findings support potential use of the QoL.BD in large-scale international trials with diverse cultural groups.

As expected, given that depression has consistently been found to be a predictor of poorer QoL in BD,^34,35 QoL.BD overall and dimension scores demonstrated strongly negative correlations with self-reported depressive symptoms. Unexpectedly, higher levels of self-reported hypomania were associated with slightly higher self-reported QoL. Evidence regarding the relationship between mania and QoL is mixed: While some studies have found a negative impact of mania on QoL,^36

–39 others have found no relationship^40,41 or a positive influence.⁴² Potentially, given the evaluative nature of the QoL.BD relative to the SF-36 (which assesses concrete aspects of QoL more closely related to functioning⁴), it may be more impacted by the experience of elevated mood. Furthermore, as levels of hypomania in the present sample were mild, individuals may have been experiencing positive impacts to their QoL (such as increased enjoyment from social interactions, feelings of well-being) and not the significant negative consequences of mania.

The EFA of this study identified item loadings that were largely comparable to that of the original English version. However, some modifications were observed, most notably in the Physical domain. It may be expected that some physical health items would load with items from the Leisure domain, given that many leisure activities (e.g., team sports) are both social and active. Potentially, this may reflect cultural differences in leisure activity preferences between French-Canadians and the original English-speaking sample. To permit cross-cultural comparisons of QoL using this scale, and to facilitate the use of the QoL.BD as a tool to guide the application of specific evidence based self-management strategies,^18,19 we recommend that the French QoL.BD be applied and scored as per the original English version.

Limitations to this study should be noted. First, the sample size used for the EFA was 108—while this meets the minimum recommended sample size,^43,44 it is considered small for an EFA.⁴⁵ A larger sample size was sought (n = 489 invitations sent); however, the response rate (26%) was low. Further, the ratio between sample size (N) and number of items (p) was low for the full QoL.BD but appropriate for the Brief version. However, it should be noted that there is evidence to support adequate replication of factor solutions in much smaller samples and N: p ratios than common rules of thumb.⁴⁶ As such, our conservative recommendation for empirical research is to preferentially use the Brief QoL.BD in Francophone samples until a larger accumulated sample is available for validation.

A second limitation arises from sample composition, which was primarily women (71.2%) and people aged 50 and 70 (62.4%). Although the gender composition of this sample is consistent with two other psychometric evaluations of this scale in Canadian samples (the original QoL.BD validation study and recent web-based adaptation), the overrepresentation of women and older adults may limit the generalizability of these findings to men and young people with BD. There is some preliminary evidence to suggest that older age and female gender are associated with poorer QoL in BD;⁴⁷ however, the role of demographic variables in predicting QoL has received limited attention to date. Future studies should aim to recruit a larger, more representative sample. Finally, while the questionnaire was piloted with French-speaking individuals in Switzerland, Canada, and France, the EFA was conducted solely with a French-Canadian population, which may have cultural differences relative to French populations. As such, generalizability of the factor solution identified in this study should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the French version of the QoL.BD (brief and full) is comparable to the English version in its psychometric properties and represents as a viable and reliable measure of QoL in French-speaking patients with BD in both clinical and research settings. Of note, the feedback received by the patients with BD that completed the preliminary version of the scale was crucial in fine-tuning the meaning of specific items, thus reinforcing the importance of having people with lived experience of BD involved early in the research process itself. The cross-cultural adaptation of the QoL.BD into French is an important step toward better supporting the mental health needs and research participation of Francophone living with BD in Canada.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_material - The Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) Scale: Validation of a French Cross-Cultural Adaptation: L’échelle de qualité de vie dans le trouble bipolaire (QoL.BD) : Validation d’une adaptation française interculturelle

Supplemental_material for The Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) Scale: Validation of a French Cross-Cultural Adaptation: L’échelle de qualité de vie dans le trouble bipolaire (QoL.BD) : Validation d’une adaptation française interculturelle by Martin D. Provencher, Emma Morton, Anne Sophie Beaudoin, Judith Guillemette, Evelyne Rheault, Chantal Mérette, Laurent Coque, Lisa D. Hawke and Erin E. Michalak in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Footnotes

Data Access

In accordance with this study’s research ethics approval, de-identified data may be accessed via request to and approval from the principal investigator Dr. Martin D. Provencher.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was received from the Direction de l’enseignement et des affaires universitaires (DEAU), Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec, QC, for the training in research as part of the Residency Program in Psychiatry at Laval University. EM was supported by a postdoctoral award from the Marshall Scholars and Fellows Program in Mental Health, Institute of Mental Health, University of British Columbia.

ORCID iD

Martin D. Provencher, PhD

Emma Morton, PhD

Lisa D. Hawke, PhD

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Merikangas

Akiskal

Angst

, et al. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the national comorbidity survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(5):543–552. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.5.543.

Ferrari

Stockings

Khoo

, et al. The prevalence and burden of bipolar disorder: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Bipolar Disord. 2016;18(5):440–450. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12423.

Murray

Michalak

. The quality of life construct in bipolar disorder research and practice: past, present, and possible futures. Bipolar Disord. 2012;14(8):793–796. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12016.

Morton

Michalak

Murray

. What does quality of life refer to in bipolar disorders research? a systematic review of the construct’s definition, usage and measurement. J Affect Disord. 2017;212:128–137. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.026.

Joyce

O’Boyle

McGee

. Introduction: the individual perspective. In: Joyce

O’Boyle

McGee

, editors. Individual quality of life: approaches to conceptualisation and assessment. New York (NY): Routledge; 1999. p. 3–8.

Bowling

. What things are important in people’s lives? a survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1447–1462. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00113-L.

Guyatt

King

Feeny

Stubbing

Goldstein

. Generic and specific measurement of health-related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(3):187–192. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00157-7.

Wiebe

Guyatt

Weaver

Matijevic

Sidwell

. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(1):52–60. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00537-1.

Bindman

Keane

Lurie

. Measuring health changes among severely ill patients: the floor phenomenon. Med Care. 1990;28(12):1142–1152. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199012000-00003.

10.

Michalak

Murray

. Development of the QoL.BD: a disorder-specific scale to assess quality of life in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2010;12(7):727–740. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2010.00865.x.

11.

Yatham

Mackala

Basivireddy

, et al. Lurasidone versus treatment as usual for cognitive impairment in euthymic patients with bipolar I disorder: a randomised, open-label, pilot study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(3):208–217. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30046-9.

12.

Calabrese

Sanchez

Jin

, et al. Symptoms and functioning with aripiprazole once-monthly injection as maintenance treatment for bipolar I disorder. J Affect Disord. 2018;227:649–656. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.035.

13.

Fletcher

Foley

Thomas

, et al. Web-based intervention to improve quality of life in late stage bipolar disorder (ORBIT): randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1805-9.

14.

Jones

Smith

Mulligan

, et al. Recovery-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy for recent-onset bipolar disorder: randomized controlled pilot trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;206(1):58–66. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.141259.

15.

Jone

Knowles

Tyles

, et al. The feasibility and acceptability of a novel anxiety in bipolar disorder intervention compared to treatment as usual: a randomized controlled trial. Depress Anxiety. 2018;35(10):953–965. doi: 10.1002/da.22781.

16.

Beck

Baker

Jones

, et al. Exploring the feasibility and acceptability of a recovery-focused group therapy intervention for adults with bipolar disorder: trial protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e019203. doi: 10.1136/ bmjopen-2017-019203.

17.

Morton

Hou

SHJ

Fogarty

, et al. A web-based adaptation of the quality of life in bipolar disorder questionnaire: psychometric evaluation study. JMIR Mental Health. 2020;7(4):e17497. doi: 10.2196/17497.

18.

Morton

Hole

Murray

Simone

Erin

. Experiences of a web-based quality of life self-monitoring tool for individuals with bipolar disorder: a qualitative exploration. JMIR Mental Health. 2019;6(11):e16121. doi: 10.2196/16121.

19.

Michalak

Morton

Barnes

Rachelle

Crest

Greg

. Supporting self-management in bipolar disorder: mixed-methods knowledge translation study. JMIR Mental Health. 2019;6(4):e13493–e13493. doi: 10.2196/13493.

20.

Statistics Canada. French and the Francophonie in Canada. Statistics Canada; 2011 [accessed 2020 Jan 31]. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011003_1-eng.pdf.

21.

WIN-Gallup International. Global index of religiosity and atheism. WIN-Gallup International; 2012 [accessed 2020 Jan 31]. https://sidmennt.is/wp-content/uploads/Gallup-International-um-tr%C3%BA-og-tr%C3%BAleysi-2012.pdf.

22.

Guillemin

Bombardier

Beaton

. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–1432. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N.

23.

Endicott

Nee

Harrison

, et al. Quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire: a new measure. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1993;29(2):321–326.

24.

Ware

Sherbourne

. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.

25.

The WHOQOL Group. Development of the world health organization WHOQOL-Bref quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–558. doi: 10.1017/s0033291798006667.

26.

Üstün

Kostanjsek

Chatterji

, et al. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.

27.

Spitzer

Kroenke

Williams

. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. primary care evaluation of mental disorders. patient health questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737–1744. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.18.1737.

28.

Altman

Hedeker

Peterson

Davis

. The Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale. Biol Psych. 1997;42(10):948–955. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00548-3.

29.

Nunnally

Bernstein

. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York (NY):McGraw-Hill; 1994.

30.

Tabachnick

Fidell

Ullman

. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Vol. 5. Boston (MA): Pearson; 2007.

31.

Morgado

Tapia

Ivanovic-Zuvic

, et al. Evaluación de la calidad de vida de pacientes bipolares chilenos: propiedades psicométricas y utilidad diagnóstica de la versión chilena del cuestionario quality of life bipolar disorder (QoL. BD-CL). 2015;143(2):213–222. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872015000200009.

32.

Xiao

Gao

Zhang

Peiyun

Xiaojia

Siyuan

. Validity and reliability of the brief version of quality of life in bipolar disorder” (Brief QoL.BD) among Chinese bipolar patients. J Affect Disord. 2016;193:66–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.12.074.

33.

Gümüş

Çakir

Kesebir

Michalak

Greg

. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the brief quality of life in bipolar disorder (Brief QoL.BD) scale. J Psych Nurs. 2018;9(3):170–174. doi: 10.14744/phd.2018.93723.

34.

IsHak

Brown

Aye

Kahloon

Mobaraki

Hanna

. Health-related quality of life in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2012;14(1):6–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2011.00969.x.

35.

Michalak

Yatham

Lam

. Quality of life in bipolar disorder: a review of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3(1):72. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-72.

36.

Depp

Davis

Mittal

Thomas

Dilip

. Health-related quality of life and functioning of middle-aged and elderly adults with bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(2):215–221. doi: 10.4088/JCP.v67n0207.

37.

Depp

Mausbach

Eyler

, et al. Performance-based and subjective measures of functioning in middle-aged and older adults with bipolar disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2009;197(7):471–475. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181ab5c9b.

38.

Gazalle

Frey

Hallal

, et al.

Mismatch between self-reported quality of life and functional assessment in acute mania: a matter of unawareness of illness?

J Affect Disord. 2007;103(1-3):247–252. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2007.01.013.

39.

Gutiérrez-Rojas

Gurpegui

Ayuso-Mateos

, et al. Quality of life in bipolar disorder patients: a comparison with a general population sample. Bipolar Disord. 2008;10(5):625–634. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00604.x.

40.

Michalak

Torres

Bond

, et al. The relationship between clinical outcomes and quality of life in first-episode mania: a longitudinal analysis. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15(2):188–198. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12049.

41.

Hayhurst

Palmer

Abbott

Johnson

Jan

. Measuring health-related quality of life in bipolar disorder: relationship of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) to condition-specific measures. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(7):1271–1280. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-0059-z.

42.

Sylvia

Montana

Deckersbach

, et al. Poor quality of life and functioning in bipolar disorder. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2017;5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s40345-017-0078-4.

43.

Gorsuch

. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1983.

44.

Kline

. Psychometrics and psychology. London, UK: Academic Press; 1979.

45.

Comrey

Lee

. A first course in factor analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1992.

46.

MacCallum

Widaman

Zhang

Sehee

. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Meth. 1999;4(1):84–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.

47.

Morton

Murray

Michalak

, et al. Quality of life in bipolar disorder: towards a dynamic understanding. Psychol Med. 2018;48(7):1111–1118. doi: 10.1017/s0033291717002495.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB