Mapping health-related quality of life measurement tools in Africa: a scoping review.

IF 2.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Begashaw Melaku Gebresillassie, Lucky Gift Ngwira, Jermaine Dambi, Adeladlew Kassie Netere, Eyayaw Ashete Belachew, Abdelghafour Marfak, Jaafar Chemli, Anthony Waka Udezi, Girma Tekle Gebremariam, Ian Neethling, Samar Farid, Popqol Africa Advisory
{"title":"Mapping health-related quality of life measurement tools in Africa: a scoping review.","authors":"Begashaw Melaku Gebresillassie, Lucky Gift Ngwira, Jermaine Dambi, Adeladlew Kassie Netere, Eyayaw Ashete Belachew, Abdelghafour Marfak, Jaafar Chemli, Anthony Waka Udezi, Girma Tekle Gebremariam, Ian Neethling, Samar Farid, Popqol Africa Advisory","doi":"10.1186/s41687-026-01100-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important measure in healthcare that captures the multidimensional effects of health on individuals' lives. While HRQoL measures are widely used globally, there is limited consolidated evidence of their application in Africa. This review aimed to explore and map the available evidence on the utilization of HRQoL measures in Africa, with a focus on understanding their application across diverse populations, health conditions, and geographical regions while identifying gaps, methodological inconsistencies, and opportunities for future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, and other sources, were searched from the inception up until August 2025. Results were synthesized narratively with descriptive statistics, presented using tables and graphs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 20,438 records identified, 731 studies met the inclusion criteria. The geographical distribution revealed significant disparities, with over half of the studies originating from Nigeria (21.8%), Ethiopia (14.8%), and South Africa (14.5%). Most studies (74.2%) employed descriptive designs and were conducted in hospital settings (70.3%). HRQoL instruments were used across a wide range of health conditions, with HIV/AIDS (20.5%), cancer (10.1%), and diabetes (7.1%) being the most frequently studied. Generic HRQoL tools such as WHOQOL-BREF (19.7%), SF-36 (16.4%), and EQ-5D (13.1%) were the most commonly utilized, accounting for nearly half of all studies. The analysis of information reporting practices for EQ-5D instruments revealed inconsistencies, with only 30.2% of studies reporting all three components (descriptive profile, index scores, and EQ-VAS).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review highlighted the increasing use of HRQoL measures in African health research over the past two decades while identifying significant gaps. Most studies were descriptive, concentrated in a few countries, and primarily conducted in healthcare settings, limiting broader applicability. The frequent use of generic HRQoL instruments underscores their importance and cultural adaptation. Additionally, inconsistencies in reporting practices and methodological limitations hinder the comparability and utility of findings. To advance HRQoL research and its application, it is essential to address these gaps through standardized guidelines, broader geographical representation, and improved methodological rigor.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13442791/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-026-01100-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important measure in healthcare that captures the multidimensional effects of health on individuals' lives. While HRQoL measures are widely used globally, there is limited consolidated evidence of their application in Africa. This review aimed to explore and map the available evidence on the utilization of HRQoL measures in Africa, with a focus on understanding their application across diverse populations, health conditions, and geographical regions while identifying gaps, methodological inconsistencies, and opportunities for future research.

Methods: The scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, and other sources, were searched from the inception up until August 2025. Results were synthesized narratively with descriptive statistics, presented using tables and graphs.

Results: Out of 20,438 records identified, 731 studies met the inclusion criteria. The geographical distribution revealed significant disparities, with over half of the studies originating from Nigeria (21.8%), Ethiopia (14.8%), and South Africa (14.5%). Most studies (74.2%) employed descriptive designs and were conducted in hospital settings (70.3%). HRQoL instruments were used across a wide range of health conditions, with HIV/AIDS (20.5%), cancer (10.1%), and diabetes (7.1%) being the most frequently studied. Generic HRQoL tools such as WHOQOL-BREF (19.7%), SF-36 (16.4%), and EQ-5D (13.1%) were the most commonly utilized, accounting for nearly half of all studies. The analysis of information reporting practices for EQ-5D instruments revealed inconsistencies, with only 30.2% of studies reporting all three components (descriptive profile, index scores, and EQ-VAS).

Conclusion: This review highlighted the increasing use of HRQoL measures in African health research over the past two decades while identifying significant gaps. Most studies were descriptive, concentrated in a few countries, and primarily conducted in healthcare settings, limiting broader applicability. The frequent use of generic HRQoL instruments underscores their importance and cultural adaptation. Additionally, inconsistencies in reporting practices and methodological limitations hinder the comparability and utility of findings. To advance HRQoL research and its application, it is essential to address these gaps through standardized guidelines, broader geographical representation, and improved methodological rigor.

绘制非洲与健康有关的生活质量测量工具:范围审查。
背景:健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)是医疗保健领域的一项重要指标,它反映了健康对个人生活的多维影响。虽然人权生活质量措施在全球广泛使用,但在非洲应用的综合证据有限。本综述旨在探索和绘制关于在非洲使用人权生活质量措施的现有证据,重点是了解这些措施在不同人口、健康状况和地理区域中的应用情况,同时确定差距、方法上的不一致之处和未来研究的机会。方法:根据Arksey和O'Malley框架进行范围审查。电子数据库,包括Medline, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL和Cochrane图书馆,以及其他来源,从成立到2025年8月进行了检索。结果用描述性统计进行综合叙述,用表格和图表表示。结果:在确定的20,438条记录中,731项研究符合纳入标准。地理分布差异显著,超过一半的研究来自尼日利亚(21.8%)、埃塞俄比亚(14.8%)和南非(14.5%)。大多数研究(74.2%)采用描述性设计,并在医院环境中进行(70.3%)。HRQoL仪器广泛用于各种健康状况,其中最常研究的是艾滋病毒/艾滋病(20.5%)、癌症(10.1%)和糖尿病(7.1%)。通用HRQoL工具如WHOQOL-BREF(19.7%)、SF-36(16.4%)和EQ-5D(13.1%)是最常用的,占所有研究的近一半。对EQ-5D工具的信息报告实践的分析揭示了不一致性,只有30.2%的研究报告了所有三个组成部分(描述性概况、指数得分和EQ-VAS)。结论:本综述强调了过去二十年来在非洲卫生研究中越来越多地使用HRQoL措施,同时确定了重大差距。大多数研究是描述性的,集中在少数国家,主要在医疗保健环境中进行,限制了更广泛的适用性。通用HRQoL仪器的频繁使用强调了它们的重要性和文化适应性。此外,报告做法的不一致和方法的限制阻碍了调查结果的可比性和实用性。为了推进HRQoL研究及其应用,必须通过标准化的指南、更广泛的地域代表性和改进方法的严谨性来解决这些差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书