No validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) exists specifically to assess quality of life in mild cognitive impairment (MCI); we report a study conducted to develop such a measure.

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with 23 people with MCI in order to determine items for a draft questionnaire. These interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed. The draft questionnaire was refined following feedback from a focus group. 280 questionnaires were posted to subjects recruited from memory clinics and research databases, the response rate was 56% i.e. 146 questionnaires were included in the final analysis. The completed questionnaires were analyzed using factor analytic techniques to produce the final measure; construct validity was assessed by correlation with a generic patient-reported outcome measure, the SF-12v2.

Factor analysis produced a 13-item measure tapping two domains of patient-reported quality of life (“Emotional Effects” and “Practical Concerns”). Internal consistency reliability was high for both domains (α was 0.91 and 0.85 respectively). Both dimensions were highly and significantly correlated with the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-12v2 (“emotional effects” ρ = −0.43, p < 0.001 and “practical concerns” ρ = −0.56, p < 0.001).

The Mild Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire (MCQ) is a 13-item measure developed specifically to measure patient-reported outcomes in people with MCI. It was created on the basis of patient report and has been shown to have good psychometric properties. It is likely to prove valuable in the evaluation of treatment regimes in this patient group.

The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI; PWMCI) and their “advocates,” particularly within healthcare services.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 PWMCI diagnosed ≤6 months ago and 20 advocates recruited via patients. The resulting data were content-analyzed.

PWMCI interviewed rarely reported negative impressions of their general practitioner (GP). Reports regarding memory services were more mixed: positive impressions related to finding the service to be “well run” and the staff “pleasant,” negative ones to the assessment process or a perceived lack of feedback. Aside from improved information provision, most PWMCI had no suggestions for improvements to their healthcare. However, these results should be interpreted with caution as many of the PWMCI interviewed displayed evidence of impaired recall and/or insight relating to their condition and healthcare. Advocates generally reported more negative impressions of both contact with the PWMCI's GP (most commonly reporting a “dismissive” attitude) and memory services (with common complaints relating to the assessments used in clinics and lengthy waiting times). This group generally had suggestions for improvements to services – particularly regarding information provision, changes in the assessment process, and improvements in communication by services.

To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth study of the difficulties experienced by PWMCI and their advocates which includes the context of healthcare provision. The specific needs of these groups, as described here, as well as those of people with dementia, should be considered when designing memory clinics and other related services.

Quality of life is the subject of growing interest and investigation.

To develop and validate a short, self-report quality of life questionnaire (the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale, SQLS).

People with schizophrenia in Liverpool were recruited via the NHS. Items, generated from in-depth interviews, were developed into an 80-item self-report questionnaire. Data were factor analysed, and a shorter form measure was tested for reliability and validity. This measure was administered together with other self-report measures – SF–36, GHQ–12 and HADS – to assess validity.

Data were analysed to produce a final 30-item questionnaire, comprising three scales (‘psychosocial’, ‘motivation and energy’, and ‘symptoms and side-effects’) addressing different SQLS dimensions. Internal consistency reliability of the scale was found to be satisfactory. There was a high level of association with relevant SF–36, GHQ–12 and HADS scores.

The SQLS was completed within 5–10 minutes. It possesses internal reliability and construct validity, and promises to be a useful tool for the evaluation of new treatment regimes for people with schizophrenia.