Instruments to assess quality of life in people with mental health problems: a systematic review and dimension analysis of generic, domain- and disease-specific instruments

Objectives The 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. Methods In 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. Results Searches 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. Conclusions The 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.

Reliability of generic quality-of-life instruments in assessing health-related quality of life among children and adolescents with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review

Introduction Most of the studies reporting the negative impact of idiopathic nephrotic syndrome on health-related quality of life in children and adolescents were conducted with generic quality-of-life instruments rather than disease-specific instruments. The consistency of these studies' findings using these generic instruments is not well established. Aim This systematic review aims to determine the reliability of current generic quality-of-life instruments in assessing health-related quality of life among children and adolescents with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. Methods We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases for articles published between 2000 and 2020, using appropriate descriptors. We included primary studies that met the eligibility criteria, independently screened their titles and abstracts, and removed all duplicates during the study-selection process. We resolved disagreements until a consensus was reached on study selection. We independently retrieved relevant data, including the generic quality-of-life instruments and the subjects’ and controls’ aggregate health-related quality of life scores, using a preconceived data-extraction form. Results Ten original articles were selected for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Some of the studies reported the following significant findings. The mean health-related quality of life scores for children with prevalent and incident nephrotic syndrome were 68.6 (range, 52.6–84.6) and 73.7 (range, 55.9–91.5), respectively. Children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome and their controls with other chronic diseases had median scores of 65 (interquartile range, 59–68.75) and 62.2 (interquartile range, 58.05–65.78). Patients on oral immunosuppressive drug and intravenous rituximab reportedly had median scores of 76.2 and 72.6 and mean scores of 71.4 (range, 55.4–87.4) and 61.6 (range, 42.1–81.1) respectively for quality-of-life assessment on the ‘school functioning domain.’ Conclusions The health-related quality of life scores in patients with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome are consistently low. Lower scores occur in prolonged disease duration and severe clinical phenotypes, whereas the scores are higher than the scores obtained in other chronic diseases. These consistent findings underscore the reliability of the current generic instruments in assessing health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.

Contemporary Analysis of Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Neurosurgical Literature

BACKGROUND Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is determined when a patient or physician defines the minimal change that outweighs the costs and untoward effects of a treatment. These measurements are “anchored” to validated quality-of-life instruments or physician-rated, disease-activity indices. To capture the subjective clinical experience in a measurable way, there is an increasing use of MCID. OBJECTIVE To review the overall concept, method of calculation, strengths, and weaknesses of MCID and its application in the neurosurgical literature. METHODS Recent articles were reviewed based on PubMed query. To illustrate the strengths and limitations of MCID, studies regarding the measurement of pain are emphasized and their impact on subsequent publications queried. RESULTS MCID varies by population baseline characteristics and calculation method. In the context of pain, MCID varied based on the quality of pain, chronicity, and treatment options. CONCLUSION MCID evaluates outcomes relative to whether they provide a meaningful change to patients, incorporating the risks and benefits of a treatment. Using MCID in the process of evaluating outcomes helps to avoid the error of interpreting a small but statistically significant outcome difference as being clinically important.

Development and Assessment of The Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases-Gout(QLICD-GO) (V2.0)

Background: To develop and assess the Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases-Gout (QLICD-GO [V2.0]).Methods: The instrument was developed using a programmatic decision-making method to combine the general module of the Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases and a new specific module. The instrument was assessed by measuring the quality of life of 116 patients with gout. Results: The QLICD-GO(V2.0) included 28 items from the general module of chronic diseases and 12 items in three facets from the specific module. In addition to the field of physiological function, the internal consistency reliability of other fields and dimensions of the instrument was >0.7 and the split-half reliability was >0.5. Three common factors were extracted from the specific module, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 57.54%. The standardized response means of the specific module and the whole instrument were 0.94 and 1.20, respectively. Conclusions: The QLICD-GO(V2.0) has good reliability, validity, and responsiveness. The instrument comprehensively and objectively reflects the quality of life of patients with gout, and it can be used to assess treatment regimens developed by medical staff.