Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available prostate cancer-specific quality of life instruments used in patients with early-stage disease.Methods
We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed database to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of prostate cancer-specific quality of life instruments. Each instrument was evaluated by two experts, independently, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden and alternative forms.Results
Eight instruments and 57 manuscripts (2-15 per instrument) were identified. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) was the best rated (overall EMPRO score 83.1 points). Good results were also obtained by University of California Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS) and Prostate Cancer Quality of Life Instrument (PC-QoL) with 77.3, 70.5 and 64.8 points, respectively. These four instruments passed with distinction the validity and responsiveness evaluation. Insufficient reliability results were observed for UCLA-PCI and PORPUS.Conclusions
Current evidence supports the choice of EPIC, PORPUS or PC-QoL. Attribute-specific EMPRO results facilitate selecting the adequate instrument for every purpose. For longitudinal studies or clinical trials, where responsiveness is the priority, EPIC or PC-QoL should be considered. We recommend the PORPUS for economic evaluations because it allows cost-utility analysis, and EPIC short versions to minimize administration burden.
SUBMITTER: Schmidt S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4155169 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo compare 2 health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instruments: the condition-specific Intermittent Exotropia Questionnaire (IXTQ) and the generic Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) in children with intermittent exotropia.MethodsFifty-one children with intermittent exotropia (median, 7 years; range, 5-16 years) were recruited from outpatient clinics with one of their parents. All children completed age-appropriate Child IXTQ (12 items) and Child PedsQL (23 items). Parents completed parallel Proxy IXTQ and Proxy PedsQL (parent assessment of child's HRQOL). Possible scores ranged from 0 to 100 (worst to best HRQOL). Normal thresholds were defined using the 5th percentile in a control group of 47 normal nonstrabismic children. Proportions scoring below normal on each questionnaire were compared. Median scores in intermittent exotropia and control groups also were compared.ResultsMore scores were subnormal using Proxy IXTQ than Proxy PedsQL (55% vs 18%, p = 0.0004). When Child questionnaires were used, we found that similar proportions scored below normal (IXTQ 8% vs PedsQL 14%, p = 0.3). Median scores were lower for intermittent exotropia children compared with control patients for Child IXTQ (83 vs 92; p = 0.04), Proxy IXTQ (81 vs 98; p < 0.0001), and Proxy PedsQL (p = 0.04) but not for Child PedsQL (p = 0.3).ConclusionsThe Proxy IXTQ detects reduced HRQOL related to intermittent exotropia more often than the Proxy PedsQL. There were few subnormal scores on Child IXTQ and Child PedsQL. Children with intermittent exotropia scored, on average, lower than control patients on the IXTQ, but most individual scores fell within the normal range. The IXTQ may prove useful for clinical assessment of intermittent exotropia.
| S-EPMC2925436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) outcomes are used to monitor quality of care for older adults accessing aged care services, yet it remains unclear which QoL instruments best meet older adults', providers' and policymakers' needs. This review aimed to (1) identify QoL instruments used in aged care and describe them in terms of QoL domains measured and logistical details; (2) summarise in which aged care settings the instruments have been used and (3) discuss factors to consider in deciding on the suitability of QoL instruments for use in aged care services.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to 2021.Eligibility criteriaInstruments were included if they were designed for adults (>18 years), available in English, been applied in a peer-reviewed research study examining QoL outcomes in adults >65 years accessing aged care (including home/social care, residential/long-term care) and had reported psychometrics.Data extraction and synthesisTwo researchers independently reviewed the measures and extracted the data. Data synthesis was performed via narrative review of eligible instruments.Results292 articles reporting on 29 QoL instruments were included. Eight domains of QoL were addressed: physical health, mental health, emotional state, social connection, environment, autonomy and overall QoL. The period between 1990 and 2000 produced the greatest number of newly developed instruments. The EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Short Form-series were used across multiple aged care contexts including home and residential care. More recent instruments (eg, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)) tend to capture emotional sentiment towards personal circumstances and higher order care needs, in comparison with more established instruments (eg, EQ-5D) which are largely focused on health status.ConclusionsA comprehensive list of QoL instruments and their characteristics is provided to inform instrument choice for use in research or for care quality assurance in aged care settings, depending on needs and interests of users.
| S-EPMC8603300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlder adults present a variety of oral diseases and conditions, in addition to co-morbidities and limited access to dental care, which significantly impact their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). There are many instruments published to measure OHRQoL. However, it is challenging for clinicians and researchers to choose the best instrument for a given purpose.PurposeTo identify OHRQoL instruments available for older adults and summarize the evidence on the conceptual and measurement model, psychometric properties, interpretability, and administration issues of OHRQoL instruments available for older adults through a systematic review.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to February 2023. Articles reporting information on the concept model measurement, psychometric properties, and administration issues of an instrument measuring OHRQoL in older adults were included. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. The overall score and seven attribute-specific scores were calculated (range 0-100): Conceptual and measurement model, Reliability, Validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability, Burden, and Alternative forms.ResultsWe identified 14 instruments evaluated in 97 articles. The overall score varied between 73.7 and 8.9, with only six questionnaires over the threshold score 50.0. EORTC QLQ OH-15 (cancer-specific questionnaire) achieved the highest score (73.7), followed by OHIP (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (66.9), GOHAI (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.5), and OHIDL (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.2). Overall, the Conceptual and measurement model and Validity showed the best performance, while Responsiveness and Interpretability showed the worst. Insufficient information was presented for an overall evaluation of DSQ and OHAI.ConclusionThe evidence supports using EORTC QLQ-OH15 as a specific instrument to assess OHRQoL in cancer patients and the OHIP-49, GOHAI, or OHIDL as generic instruments to assess OHRQoL either for cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in older adults.
| S-EPMC10787424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the most frequently used atrial fibrillation-specific quality of life (QoL) instruments across atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation studies and to perform a systematic review of the most frequently used instrument's measurement properties. This study uses quality of life instruments as an overarching term for any patient reported outcome measure that assesses a person's health related well-being, functional status, and disease related symptoms.MethodsA literature mapping exercise was undergone to identify the most frequently used AF-specific QoL instruments across AF ablation studies published from 2016 to 2021. A systematic review of the most frequently used AF QoL instruments identified from the mapping exercise was performed using the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measurements. A systematic search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL. The search used variations of the keywords "atrial fibrillation", "quality of life", and "catheter ablation".ResultsForty-five instruments were identified via the literature mapping exercise. After excluding non-patient reported outcome instruments, non-AF specific instruments, and instruments appearing only once, six instruments were identified: AF Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT), AF Severity Scale, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Instrument, AF Quality of Life Instrument, Arrhythmia Specific instrument in Tachycardia and Arrhythmia (ASTA), and SCL (Arrhythmia Symptom Checklist, Frequency and Severity). A systematic review of these six AF-specific health related QoL instruments was performed. We screened 3221 articles and 17 studies were eligible for inclusion. Using the COSMIN guidelines, ASTA and AFEQT had the best ratings across measurement properties with both instruments having good ratings for instrument development and internal consistency. However, none of the 17 included articles assessed measurement error and cross-cultural validity.ConclusionsAFEQT and ASTA had the strongest measurement properties but not all measurement properties were assessed. Considering the large number of indeterminate and insufficient ratings, future research should focus on cross-cultural validation, measurement error, responsiveness, and interpretability. This review summarizes the current evidence for AF QoL instruments across AF ablation studies and outlines areas for future research.
| S-EPMC9575307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAbdominal wall herniation (AWH) is an increasing problem for patients, surgeons, and healthcare providers. Surgical-site specific outcomes, such as infection, recurrence, and mesh explantation, are improving; however, successful repair still exposes the patient to what is often a complex major operation aimed at improving quality of life. Quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, such as aesthetics, pain, and physical and emotional functioning, are less often and less well reported. We reviewed QOL tools currently available to evaluate their suitability.MethodsA systematic review of the literature in compliance with PRISMA guidelines was performed between 1st January 1990 and 1st May 2019. English language studies using validated quality-of-life assessment tool, whereby outcomes using this tool could be assessed were included.ResultsHeterogeneity in the QOL tool used for reporting outcome was evident throughout the articles reviewed. AWH disease-specific tools, hernia-specific tools, and generic tools were used throughout the literature with no obviously preferred or dominant method identified.ConclusionDespite increasing acknowledgement of the need to evaluate QOL in patients with AWH, no tool has become dominant in this field. Assessment, therefore, of the impact of certain interventions or techniques on quality of life remains difficult and will continue to do so until an adequate standardised outcome measurement tool is available.
| S-EPMC8055629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis aims to interrupt transmission of lymphatic filariasis and manage morbidity in people currently living with the disease. A component of morbidity management is improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients. Measurement of HRQoL in current management programs is varied because of the lack of a standard HRQoL tool for use in the lymphatic filariasis population.Methodology/principal findingsIn this study, the psychometric properties of three health status measures were compared when used in a group of lymphatic filariasis patients and healthy controls. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and the Lymphatic Filariasis Quality of Life Questionnaire (LFSQQ) were administered to 36 stage II and stage III lymphatic filariasis subjects and 36 age and sex matched controls in Kerala, India. All three tools yielded missing value rates lower than 10%, suggesting high feasibility. Highest internal consistency was seen in the LFSQQ (α = 0.97). Discriminant validity analysis demonstrated that HRQoL was significantly lower in the LF group than in controls for the WHODAS 2.0, DLQI, and LFSQQ, but total HRQoL scores did not differ between stage II and stage III lymphedema subjects. The LFSQQ total score correlated most strongly with the WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.91, p<0.001) and DLQI (r = 0.81, p<0.001).Conclusions/significanceThe WHODAS 2.0, DLQI, and LFSQQ demonstrate acceptable feasibility, internal consistency, discriminate validity, and construct validity. Based on our psychometric analyses, the LFSQQ performs the best and is recommended for use in the lymphatic filariasis population.
| S-EPMC3930502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAgainst 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.MethodsA systematic review of original research published in all languages between 2008 and 2018 was conducted. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded.ResultsSixty-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.ConclusionsIt 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.
| S-EPMC7329518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeOpioid dependence is a chronic relapsing disorder. Despite increasing research on quality of life (QOL) in people with opioid dependence, little attention has been paid to the instruments used. This systematic review examines the suitability of QOL instruments for use in opioid-dependent populations and the instruments' quality.MethodsA systematic search was performed in the databases Medline, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Articles were eligible if they assessed QOL of opioid-dependent populations using a validated QOL instrument. Item content relevance to opioid-dependent people was evaluated by means of content analysis, and instrument properties were assessed using minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures.ResultsEighty-nine articles were retrieved, yielding sixteen QOL instruments, of which ten were assessed in this review. Of the ten instruments, six were disease specific, but none for opioid dependence. Two instruments had good item content relevance. The conceptual and measurement model were described in seven instruments. Four instruments were developed with input from the respective target population. Eight instruments had low respondent and administrator burden. Psychometric properties were either not assessed in opioid-dependent populations or were inconclusive or moderate.ConclusionsNo instrument scored perfectly on both the content and properties. The limited suitability of instruments for opioid-dependent people hinders accurate and sensitive measurement of QOL in this population. Future research is in need of an opioid dependence-specific QOL instrument to measure the true impact of the disease on people's lives and to evaluate treatment-related services.
| S-EPMC5681984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Professionalism, which encompasses behavioral, ethical, and related domains, is a core competency of medical practice. While observer-based instruments to assess medical professionalism are available, information on their psychometric properties and utility is limited. Objective:We systematically reviewed the psychometric properties and utility of existing observer-based instruments for assessing professionalism in medical trainees. Methods:After selecting eligible studies, we employed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria to score study methodological quality. We identified eligible instruments and performed quality assessment of psychometric properties for each selected instrument. We scored the utility of each instrument based on the ability to distinguish performance levels over time, availability of objective scoring criteria, validity evidence in medical students and residents, and instrument length. Results:Ten instruments from 16 studies met criteria for consideration, with studies having acceptable methodological quality. Psychometric properties were variably assessed. Among 10 instruments, the Education Outcomes Service (EOS) group questionnaire and Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) possessed the best psychometric properties, with the P-MEX scoring higher on utility than the EOS group questionnaire. Conclusions:We identified 2 instruments with best psychometric properties, with 1 also showing acceptable utility for assessing professionalism in trainees. The P-MEX may be an option for program directors to adopt as an observer-based instrument for formative assessment of medical professionalism. Further studies of the 2 instruments to aggregate additional validity evidence is recommended, particularly in the domain of content validity before they are used in specific cultural settings and in summative assessments.
| S-EPMC6314360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence suggests that social networks of patients with psychotic disorders influence symptoms, quality of life and treatment outcomes. It is therefore important to assess social networks for which appropriate and preferably established instruments should be used.AimsTo identify instruments assessing social networks in studies of patients with psychotic disorders and explore their properties.MethodA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that used a measure of social networks in patients with psychotic disorders.ResultsEight instruments were identified, all of which had been developed before 1991. They have been used in 65 studies (total N of patients = 8,522). They assess one or more aspects of social networks such as their size, structure, dimensionality and quality. Most instruments have various shortcomings, including questionable inter-rater and test-retest reliability.ConclusionsThe assessment of social networks in patients with psychotic disorders is characterized by a variety of approaches which may reflect the complexity of the construct. Further research on social networks in patients with psychotic disorders would benefit from advanced and more precise instruments using comparable definitions of and timescales for social networks across studies.
| S-EPMC4692496 | biostudies-literature