PURPOSE: In this literature review we evaluated the feasibility and clinimetric quality of quality-of-life (QoL) measurement instruments suitable for use in palliative care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify instruments measuring (at least one domain of) QoL. We selected articles that present data on patients receiving palliative care and at least one measurement property. A checklist was used to describe the characteristics of the instruments, and a widely accepted rating list was used to evaluate the clinimetric aspects. RESULTS: 29 instruments were identified and evaluated, most of which were targeted at palliative patients in general. None of the instruments demonstrated satisfactory results for all measurement properties. Fourteen instruments received positive ratings for construct validity. Thirteen instruments were tested for reliability, but only two were tested adequately and had positive results (ICC>0.70). Responsiveness was not tested adequately for any of the instruments. Very few of the studies provided information on the interpretation of the scores. Overall, the MQOL, followed by the QUAL-E and the QODD, received the best ratings for their measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: Many measurement instruments were identified, but most had not yet been adequately evaluated. The evaluation of existing instruments with good content validity should have priority over the development of new instruments.
PURPOSE: In this literature review we evaluated the feasibility and clinimetric quality of quality-of-life (QoL) measurement instruments suitable for use in palliative care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify instruments measuring (at least one domain of) QoL. We selected articles that present data on patients receiving palliative care and at least one measurement property. A checklist was used to describe the characteristics of the instruments, and a widely accepted rating list was used to evaluate the clinimetric aspects. RESULTS: 29 instruments were identified and evaluated, most of which were targeted at palliative patients in general. None of the instruments demonstrated satisfactory results for all measurement properties. Fourteen instruments received positive ratings for construct validity. Thirteen instruments were tested for reliability, but only two were tested adequately and had positive results (ICC>0.70). Responsiveness was not tested adequately for any of the instruments. Very few of the studies provided information on the interpretation of the scores. Overall, the MQOL, followed by the QUAL-E and the QODD, received the best ratings for their measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: Many measurement instruments were identified, but most had not yet been adequately evaluated. The evaluation of existing instruments with good content validity should have priority over the development of new instruments.
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Heidi Fransen; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Myrte Zijlstra; Natasja Raijmakers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Harvey Max Chochinov; Linda J Kristjanson; William Breitbart; Susan McClement; Thomas F Hack; Tom Hassard; Mike Harlos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Julia Downing; Steffen T Simon; Faith N Mwangi-Powell; Hamid Benalia; Barbara A Daveson; Irene J Higginson; Richard Harding; Claudia Bausewein Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Madeleine T King; Meera Agar; David C Currow; Janet Hardy; Belinda Fazekas; Nikki McCaffrey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603