Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2019 | Review

A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences

Authors: K. Haraldstad, A. Wahl, R. Andenæs, J. R. Andersen, M. H. Andersen, E. Beisland, C. R. Borge, E. Engebretsen, M. Eisemann, L. Halvorsrud, T. A. Hanssen, A. Haugstvedt, T. Haugland, V. A. Johansen, M. H. Larsen, L. Løvereide, B. Løyland, L. G. Kvarme, P. Moons, T. M. Norekvål, L. Ribu, G. E. Rohde, K. H. Urstad, S. Helseth, the LIVSFORSK network

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 10/2019

Abstract

Purpose

Quality of life (QOL) is an important concept in the field of health and medicine. QOL is a complex concept that is interpreted and defined differently within and between disciplines, including the fields of health and medicine. The aims of this study were to systematically review the literature on QOL in medicine and health research and to describe the country of origin, target groups, instruments, design, and conceptual issues.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify research studies on QOL and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The databases Scopus, which includes Embase and MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published during one random week in November 2016. The ten predefined criteria of Gill and Feinstein were used to evaluate the conceptual and methodological rigor.

Results

QOL research is international and involves a variety of target groups, research designs, and QOL measures. According to the criteria of Gill and Feinstein, the results show that only 13% provided a definition of QOL, 6% distinguished QOL from HRQOL. The most frequently fulfilled criteria were: (i) stating the domains of QOL to be measured; (ii) giving a reason for choosing the instruments used; and (iii) aggregating the results from multiple items.

Conclusion

QOL is an important endpoint in medical and health research, and QOL research involves a variety of patient groups and different research designs. Based on the current evaluation of the methodological and conceptual clarity of QOL research, we conclude that the majority QOL studies in health and medicine have conceptual and methodological challenges.

Available only for authorised users

Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2016). Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

Staquet, M., Berzon, R., Osoba, D., & Machin, D. (1996). Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 5(5), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00540022.CrossRefPubMed

Whoqol Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K.CrossRef

Mayo, N. (2015). Dictionary of Quality of Life and Health Outcomes Measurement. Milwaukee, WI: International Society for Quality of Life Research.

Gill, T. M., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994). A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA, 272(8), 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045.CrossRefPubMed

Moons, P., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2006). Critique on the conceptualization of quality of life: A review and evaluation of different conceptual approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(7), 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.015.CrossRefPubMed

Bratt, E. L., & Moons, P. (2015). Forty years of quality-of-life research in congenital heart disease: Temporal trends in conceptual and methodological rigor. International Journal of Cardiology, 195, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.05.070.CrossRefPubMed

Moons, P., Van Deyk, K., Budts, W., & De Geest, S. (2004). Caliber of quality-of-life assessments in congenital heart disease: A plea for more conceptual and methodological rigor. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158(11), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.11.1062.CrossRefPubMed

Shek, D. T. L. (2010). Introduction: Quality of life of Chinese people in a changing world. Social Indicators Research, 95(3), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9534-6.CrossRef

10.

Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Wille, N., Wetzel, R., Nickel, J., & Bullinger, M. (2006). Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. PharmacoEconomics, 24(12), 1199–1220. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624120-00005.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Creswell, C., & Chalder, T. (2003). The relationship between illness attributions and attributional style in chronic fatigue syndrome. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42(Pt 1), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466503762842057.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Tonon, G. (2015). Qualitative studies in quality of life: Methodology and practice. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

13.

Petersen-Ewert, C., Erhart, M., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2011). Assessing health-related quality of life in European children and adolescents. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(8), 1752–1756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.012.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.CrossRef

15.

Adunuri, N. R., & Feldman, B. M. (2015). Critical appraisal of studies measuring quality of life in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 67(6), 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22514.CrossRef

16.

Bullinger, M. (2002). Assessing health related quality of life in medicine. An overview over concepts, methods and applications in international research. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 20(3–4), 93–101.PubMed

17.

Hubert-Dibon, G., Bru, M., Le Guen, C. G., Launay, E., & Roy, A. (2016). Health-related quality of life for children and adolescents with specific language impairment: A cohort study by a learning disabilities reference center. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166541. https://doi.org/10.1371/.0166541.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Moons, P. (2010). The importance of methodological rigour in quality-of-life studies. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 37(1), 246–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.07.027.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Moons, P., Jaarsma, T., & Norekval, T. M. (2010). Requirements for quality-of-life reports. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 9(3), 141–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2010.05.008.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cuerda, M. C., Apezetxea, A., Carrillo, L., Casanueva, F., Cuesta, F., Irles, J. A., et al. (2016). Development and validation of a specific questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with home enteral nutrition: NutriQoL^® development. Patient Preference and Adherence, 10, 2289–2296. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S110188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Karimi, M., & Brazier, J. (2016). Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference? PharmacoEconomics, 34(7), 645–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9.CrossRefPubMed

22.

McClimans, L., & Browne, J. P. (2012). Quality of life is a process not an outcome. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33(4), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9227-z.CrossRefPubMed

Title: A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences
Authors: K. Haraldstad
A. Wahl
R. Andenæs
J. R. Andersen
M. H. Andersen
E. Beisland
C. R. Borge
E. Engebretsen
M. Eisemann
L. Halvorsrud
T. A. Hanssen
A. Haugstvedt
T. Haugland
V. A. Johansen
M. H. Larsen
L. Løvereide
B. Løyland
L. G. Kvarme
P. Moons
T. M. Norekvål
L. Ribu
G. E. Rohde
K. H. Urstad
S. Helseth
the LIVSFORSK network
Publication date: 01-10-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

Comparing life satisfaction and functioning 15 years after September 11, 2001 among survivors with and without injuries: a mixed-method study

Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in adolescence

Self-stigma predicts lower quality of life in Chinese American breast cancer survivors: exploring the mediating role of intrusive thoughts and posttraumatic growth

Appraising the quality of tools used to record patient-reported outcomes in users of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): a systematic review

Evaluation of the responsiveness of Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) in Chinese patients with hypertension in primary care

Prediction of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) using PROMIS-29 in a national sample of lumbar spine surgery patients