Cargando…
Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies
BACKGROUND: Against a backdrop of population aging and improving survival rates for chronic noncommunicable diseases (CNCD), researchers are placing growing emphasis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this study was to identify the QoL assessment instruments used in population-bas...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7329518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32605649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01347-7 |
_version_ | 1783552922017071104 |
---|---|
author | Pequeno, Nila Patrícia Freire Cabral, Natália Louise de Araújo Marchioni, Dirce Maria Lima, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lyra, Clélia de Oliveira |
author_facet | Pequeno, Nila Patrícia Freire Cabral, Natália Louise de Araújo Marchioni, Dirce Maria Lima, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lyra, Clélia de Oliveira |
author_sort | Pequeno, Nila Patrícia Freire |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Against a backdrop of population aging and improving survival rates for chronic noncommunicable diseases (CNCD), researchers are placing growing emphasis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this study was to identify the QoL assessment instruments used in population-based studies with adults conducted around the world. METHODS: A systematic review of original research published in all languages between 2008 and 2018 was conducted. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles (38.1% conducted in the Americas) fitted the eligibility criteria. Based on the AHRQ checklist for cross-sectional studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, methodological quality was shown to be fair in the majority of studies (55.6%) and good in 44.4%. The country with the highest number of publications was Brazil (20.6%). Twelve types of generic instruments and 11 specific instruments were identified. The generic instrument SF-36 was the most frequently used measure (33.3% of studies). In-home interviewing was exclusively used by 47.6% of the studies, while 39 studies (61.9%) reported the use of self-administered questionnaires. Over two-thirds of the studies (34.9%) used questionnaires to investigate the association between chronic diseases and/or associated factors. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the wide range of instruments and modes of questionnaire administration used by the studies may hinder comparisons between population groups with the same characteristics or needs. There is a lack of research on QoL and the factors affecting productive capacity. Studies of QoL in older persons should focus not only on the effects of disease and treatment, but also on the determinants of active aging and actions designed to promote it. Further research is recommended to determine which QoL instruments are best suited for population-based studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7329518 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73295182020-07-02 Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies Pequeno, Nila Patrícia Freire Cabral, Natália Louise de Araújo Marchioni, Dirce Maria Lima, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lyra, Clélia de Oliveira Health Qual Life Outcomes Review BACKGROUND: Against a backdrop of population aging and improving survival rates for chronic noncommunicable diseases (CNCD), researchers are placing growing emphasis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this study was to identify the QoL assessment instruments used in population-based studies with adults conducted around the world. METHODS: A systematic review of original research published in all languages between 2008 and 2018 was conducted. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles (38.1% conducted in the Americas) fitted the eligibility criteria. Based on the AHRQ checklist for cross-sectional studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, methodological quality was shown to be fair in the majority of studies (55.6%) and good in 44.4%. The country with the highest number of publications was Brazil (20.6%). Twelve types of generic instruments and 11 specific instruments were identified. The generic instrument SF-36 was the most frequently used measure (33.3% of studies). In-home interviewing was exclusively used by 47.6% of the studies, while 39 studies (61.9%) reported the use of self-administered questionnaires. Over two-thirds of the studies (34.9%) used questionnaires to investigate the association between chronic diseases and/or associated factors. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the wide range of instruments and modes of questionnaire administration used by the studies may hinder comparisons between population groups with the same characteristics or needs. There is a lack of research on QoL and the factors affecting productive capacity. Studies of QoL in older persons should focus not only on the effects of disease and treatment, but also on the determinants of active aging and actions designed to promote it. Further research is recommended to determine which QoL instruments are best suited for population-based studies. BioMed Central 2020-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7329518/ /pubmed/32605649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01347-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Pequeno, Nila Patrícia Freire Cabral, Natália Louise de Araújo Marchioni, Dirce Maria Lima, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lyra, Clélia de Oliveira Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
title | Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
title_full | Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
title_fullStr | Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
title_short | Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
title_sort | quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7329518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32605649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01347-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pequenonilapatriciafreire qualityoflifeassessmentinstrumentsforadultsasystematicreviewofpopulationbasedstudies AT cabralnatalialouisedearaujo qualityoflifeassessmentinstrumentsforadultsasystematicreviewofpopulationbasedstudies AT marchionidircemaria qualityoflifeassessmentinstrumentsforadultsasystematicreviewofpopulationbasedstudies AT limaseverinacarlavieiracunha qualityoflifeassessmentinstrumentsforadultsasystematicreviewofpopulationbasedstudies AT lyracleliadeoliveira qualityoflifeassessmentinstrumentsforadultsasystematicreviewofpopulationbasedstudies |