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

Haraldstad, Kristin; Wahl, Astrid Klopstad; Andenæs, Randi; Andersen, John Roger; Andersen, Marit Helen; Beisland, Elisabeth Grov; Borge, Christine Råheim; Engebretsen, Eivind; Eisemann, Martin; Halvorsrud, Liv Torill; Hanssen, Tove Aminda; Haugstvedt, Anne; Haugland, Trude; Johansen, Venke A; Larsen, Marie Hamilton; Løvereide, Lise; Løyland, Borghild; Kvarme, Lisbeth Gravdal; Moons, P; Norekvål, Tone M.; Ribu, Lis; Rohde, Gudrun E.; Urstad, Kristin Hjorthaug; Helseth, Sølvi
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Published version
Thumbnail
View/Open
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10642/7446
Date
2019-05-20
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
Original version
Haraldstad K, Wahl AK, Andenæs R, Andersen JR, Andersen MH, Beisland E, Borge CR, Engebretsen E, Eisemann M, Halvorsrud L, Hanssen TA, Haugstvedt A, Haugland THa, Johansen VA, Larsen MHL, Løvereide L, Løyland B, Kvarme LGK, Moons P, Norekvål TM, Ribu L, Rohde G, Urstad KH, Helseth S. A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Quality of Life Research. 2019:1-10   https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9
Abstract
PurposeQuality 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.MethodsA 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 pub-lished during one random week in November 2016. The ten predefined criteria of Gill and Feinstein were used to evaluate the conceptual and methodological rigor.ResultsQOL research is international and involves a variety of target groups, research designs, and QOL measures. Accord-ing 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.ConclusionQOL 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.
Publisher
Springer Verlag
Series
Quality of Life Research; October 2019, Volume 28, Issue 10
Journal
Quality of Life Research
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.