Le concept de qualité de vie est ancien, mais a été utilisé de manière extensive depuis les années 1990, avec une explosion du nombre d’instruments permettant une telle mesure, laissant les cliniciens souvent dubitatifs face à ces nombreux instruments qui ont des modalités de cotation, des finalités, des aspects dimensionnels et des temps de passation très variables. Le but de cette revue est de décrire les échelles de qualité de vie les plus utilisées dans la littérature sur la schizophrénie, et de reprendre les différentes caractéristiques et spécificités afin d’aider les cliniciens à choisir l’instrument le plus approprié en fonction de ses attentes et/ou des possibilités. De manière générale ces instruments requièrent entre 3 et 60min de passation, se basent sur un nombre d’items qui varie de 5 à 146, qui permettent de mesurer entre 1 et 14 dimensions différentes. Les deux extrêmes pourraient être l’EuroQOL qui se contente de 5 questions avec une évaluation analogique visuelle pour leur sévérité, à la Quality of Life Scale qui requiert une formation initiale et un entretien semi-structuré pour balayer les 21 axes de cotation.

The concept of quality of life is an old one, but used extensively in the literature since the 90s with a growing number of instruments. Such diversity makes it difficult for clinicians to choose the most appropriate one regarding their divergence on different aspects including how to use them (especially self-questionnaire versus clinician based semi-structure interview), for what aim (from cost perspective, to functionality and/or subjective well-beingness), relying on what dimensions (as the covered quality of life dimensions are not always overlapping), and in which clinical settings (especially according to the availability or not of trained clinicians, and depending of the available time for such assessments). The aim of the literature review is to describe the most frequently used and/or quoted quality of life instruments in schizophrenia, and to describe their different characteristics and specificities in order to help clinicians to find the most appropriate one according to expectancies, possibilities and interests. In this review, we were able to collect 23 instruments, which need between 3 and 60min to fill-in, are relying in between 5 and 146 items, and allowing the assessment of 1 to 14 different quality of life dimensions. The two extremes could be the EuroQOL, which only has 5 self-report questions (with a visual analogical scale, for the rating procedure) and therefore needing only a couple of minutes, and the Quality of Life Scale which needs an initial training for quotation, relies on a semi-structured interview screening 21 items that are used to assess four different dimensions. Because of the heterogeneity of the broad concept of quality of life, and especially the diversity of the expectancies of the different instruments, it is not surprising that so many instruments are being proposed. But this statement reinforces the requirement that clinicians use the most adequate one, not only according to the expectancies, but also taking into account the local possibilities, especially regarding time to fill in the instrument and the possibility for clinicians to be trained if needed.