Measuring quality of life in opioid-dependent people: a systematic review of assessment instruments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Opioid 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.Methods
A 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.Results
Eighty-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.Conclusions
No 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.
SUBMITTER: Strada L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5681984 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus affects an individual's quality of life (QoL); and there are multiple instruments that can be used to measure QoL. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the existing instruments that have been used to measure QoL in people living with diabetes, and to enlist the major domains (such as physical and psychological components) available in the identified instruments. Additionally, we plan to determine the psychometric properties of the identified QoL instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guideline was followed to report this systematic review protocol. Searches will be conducted on MEDLINE (via PubMed, Web of Science), SCOPUS and CINAHL. Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria will be applied to the search results, to include studies with adult individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with and without complications, and exclude studies with type 1 diabetes or other clinical illness. Studies conducted outside India will be excluded. Five authors in pairs will independently screen the articles and extract the data that meets the inclusion criteria. The COSMIN criteria will be used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Narrative synthesis will be performed to analyse the findings of the instruments.Ethics and disseminationEthical permission is not applicable, as this is a systematic review. We intend to disseminate the systematic review findings through a national or international conference and publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020180432.
| S-EPMC8023725 | 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:INTRODUCTION:Dementia is the fastest growing major cause of disability globally and may have a profound impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of both the patient with dementia and those who care for them. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesise the measurements of HRQoL for people with, and their caregivers across the full spectrum of, dementia from its preceding stage of predementia to end of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic literature review was conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online , ExcerptaMedicadataBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsycINFO between January 1990 and the end of April 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. HRQoL measurements will be presented separately for people with dementia and caregivers by instrument used and, when possible, HRQoL will be reported by disease type and stage of the disease. Descriptive statistics of the results will be provided. A narrative synthesis of studies will also be provided discussing differences in HRQoL measurements by instrument used to estimate it, type of dementia and disease severity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This systematic literature review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to the work developed in the Real World Outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data access platform (ROADMAP). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017071416.
| S-EPMC5884378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe importance of economic evaluations of mental healthcare interventions is increasingly recognized. Despite the multitude of available quality of life instruments, concerns have been raised regarding the content validity of these instruments, and hence suitability for use in mental health. The aim of this paper, therefore, was to assess the content validity and the suitability of existing quality of life instruments for use in economic evaluations in mental health problems.MethodsIn order to identify available quality of life instruments used in people with mental health problems, a systematic review was performed using the Embase, Medline and PsycINFO databases (time period January 2012 to January 2018). Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and executed data extraction. The evaluation framework of Connell and colleagues was used to assess whether the identified quality of life instruments cover the dimensions valued highly by people with mental health problems. Two reviewers independently mapped the content of each identified instrument onto the evaluation framework and indicated the extent to which the instrument covered each of the dimensions of the evaluation framework.ResultsSearches of databases yielded a total of 5727 references. Following duplicate removal and double-independent screening, 949 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. A total of 44 unique quality of life instruments were identified, of which 12 were adapted versions of original instruments. The best coverage of the dimensions of the evaluation framework of Connell and colleagues was by the WHOQOL-100, S-QoL, SQLS, EDQoL, QLI and the IMHQOL, but none fully covered all dimensions of the evaluation framework.ConclusionsThe results of this study highlight the multitude of available quality of life instruments used in people with mental health problems and indicate that none of the available quality of life instruments fully cover the dimensions previously found to be important in people with mental health problems. Future research should explore the possibilities of refining or expanding existing instruments as well as the development and testing of new quality of life instruments to ensure that all relevant quality of life dimensions for people with mental health problems are covered in evaluations.
| S-EPMC8561965 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis remains a major public health problem worldwide. In recent years, increasing efforts have been dedicated to assessing the health-related quality of life experienced by people infected with tuberculosis. The objectives of this study were to better understand the impact of tuberculosis and its treatment on people's quality of life, and to review quality of life instruments used in current tuberculosis research. METHODS: A systematic literature search from 1981 to 2008 was performed through a number of electronic databases as well as a manual search. Eligible studies assessed multi-dimensional quality of life in people with tuberculosis disease or infection using standardized instruments. Results of the included studies were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Twelve original studies met our criteria for inclusion. A wide range of quality of life instruments were involved, and the Short-Form 36 was most commonly used. A validated tuberculosis-specific quality of life instrument was not located. The findings showed that tuberculosis had a substantial and encompassing impact on patients' quality of life. Overall, the anti-tuberculosis treatment had a positive effect of improving patients' quality of life; their physical health tended to recover more quickly than the mental well-being. However, after the patients successfully completed treatment and were microbiologically 'cured', their quality of life remained significantly worse than the general population. CONCLUSION: Tuberculosis has substantially adverse impacts on patients' quality of life, which persist after microbiological 'cure'. A variety of instruments were used to assess quality of life in tuberculosis and there has been no well-established tuberculosis-specific instrument, making it difficult to fully understand the impact of the illness.
| S-EPMC2651863 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHealth impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice.MethodsPubMed, PsycINFO, Econlit and Embase were systematically searched for studies whereof: (i) instruments measured health-related productivity changes; (ii) the aim was to evaluate instrument measurement properties; (iii) instruments were generic; (iv) ratings were self-reported; (v) full-texts were available. Next, methodological quality appraisal was based on COSMIN elements: (i) internal consistency; (ii) reliability; (iii) measurement error; (iv) content validity; (v) structural validity; (vi) hypotheses testing; (vii) cross-cultural validity; (viii) criterion validity; and (ix) responsiveness. Recommendations are based on evidence syntheses.ResultsThis review included 25 articles assessing the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 15 different generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes. Most studies evaluated criterion validity, none evaluated cross-cultural validity and information on measurement error is lacking. The Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) was most frequently evaluated with moderate respectively strong positive evidence for content and structural validity and negative evidence for reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. Less frequently evaluated, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS) showed strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, and moderate positive evidence for hypotheses testing and criterion validity. The Productivity and Disease Questionnaire (PRODISQ) yielded strong positive evidence for content validity, evidence for other properties is lacking. The other instruments resulted in mostly fair-to-poor quality ratings with limited evidence.ConclusionsDecisions based on the content of the instrument, usage purpose, target country and population, and available evidence are recommended. Until high-quality studies are in place to accurately assess the measurement properties of the currently available instruments, the WLQ and, in a Dutch context, the PRODISQ are cautiously preferred based on its strong positive evidence for content validity. Based on its strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, the SPS is cautiously recommended.
| S-EPMC3942271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNumerous instruments have been developed to assess spirituality and measure its association with health outcomes. This study's aims were to identify instruments used in clinical research that measure spirituality; to propose a classification of these instruments; and to identify those instruments that could provide information on the need for spiritual intervention.MethodsA systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, ATLA, and EMBASE databases, using the terms "spirituality" and "adult$," and limited to journal articles was performed to identify clinical studies that used a spiritual assessment instrument. For each instrument identified, measured constructs, intended goals, and data on psychometric properties were retrieved. A conceptual and a functional classification of instruments were developed.ResultsThirty-five instruments were retrieved and classified into measures of general spirituality (N = 22), spiritual well-being (N = 5), spiritual coping (N = 4), and spiritual needs (N = 4) according to the conceptual classification. Instruments most frequently used in clinical research were the FACIT-Sp and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Data on psychometric properties were mostly limited to content validity and inter-item reliability. According to the functional classification, 16 instruments were identified that included at least one item measuring a current spiritual state, but only three of those appeared suitable to address the need for spiritual intervention.ConclusionsInstruments identified in this systematic review assess multiple dimensions of spirituality, and the proposed classifications should help clinical researchers interested in investigating the complex relationship between spirituality and health. Findings underscore the scarcity of instruments specifically designed to measure a patient's current spiritual state. Moreover, the relatively limited data available on psychometric properties of these instruments highlight the need for additional research to determine whether they are suitable in identifying the need for spiritual interventions.
| S-EPMC3208480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Blunted affect, also referred to as emotional blunting, is a prominent symptom of schizophrenia. Patients with blunted affect have difficulty in expressing their emotions. The work of Abrams and Taylor and their development of the Rating Scale for Emotional Blunting in the late 1970's was an early indicator that blunted affect could indeed be assessed reliably. Since then, several new instruments assessing negative symptoms with subscales measuring blunted affect have been developed. In light of this, we aim to provide researchers and clinicians with a systematic review of the different instruments used to assess blunted affect by providing a comparison of the type, characteristics, administration and psychometric properties of these instruments. Studies reporting on the psychometric properties of instruments assessing blunted affect in patients with schizophrenia were included. Reviews and case studies were excluded. We reviewed 30 full-text articles and included 15 articles and 10 instruments in this systematic review. On average the instruments take 15-30 minutes to administer. We found that blunted affect items common across all instruments assess: gestures, facial expressions and vocal expressions. The CAINS Self-report Expression Subscale, had a low internal consistency score. This suggests that this sub-scale does not reliably assess patients' self-reported blunted affect symptoms and is likely due to the nature of blunted affect. Instruments correlated minimally with instruments measuring positive symptoms and more importantly with depression suggesting that the instruments distinguish between seemingly similar symptoms.
| S-EPMC4452733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.Our comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.From the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).Our results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.
| S-EPMC5192798 | biostudies-other
Project description:To identify instruments or components of instruments that aim to measure aspects of a caring culture-shared beliefs, norms and values that direct professionals and managers to act caring in hospitals, and to evaluate their psychometric properties.Systematic review.PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science and the International bibliography of the Social Sciences.Peer-reviewed articles describing (components of) instruments measuring aspects of a caring culture in a hospital setting. Studies had to report psychometric data regarding the reliability or validity of the instrument. Potentially useful instruments that were identified after the title and abstract scan were assessed on relevance by an expert panel (n=12) using the RAND-modified Delphi procedure.Of the 6399 references identified, 75 were examined in detail. 7 studies each covering a unique instrument met our inclusion criteria. On average, 24% of the instrument's items were considered relevant for measuring aspects of the hospital's caring culture. Studies showed moderate-to-high validity and reliability scores. Validity was addressed for 6 of the 7 instruments. Face, content (90%) and construct (60%) validity were the most frequently reported psychometric properties described. One study (14%) reported discriminant validity of the instrument. Reliability data were available for all of the instruments. Internal consistency was the most frequently reported psychometric property for the instruments and demonstrated by: a Cronbach's ? coefficient (80%), subscale intercorrelations (60%), and item-total correlations (40%).The ultimate standard for measuring a caring culture in hospitals does not exist. Existing instruments provide partial coverage and lack information on discriminant validity, responsiveness and feasibility. Characteristics of the instruments included in this review could provide useful input for the design of a reliable and valid instrument for measuring a caring culture in hospitals.
| S-EPMC3787470 | biostudies-other