Tools to assess quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in India: A scoping review.

Q2 Medicine
Sandeep Moola, Jyoti Tyagi, Misimi Kakoti, Anushka Patel, Soumyadeep Bhaumik
{"title":"Tools to assess quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in India: A scoping review.","authors":"Sandeep Moola,&nbsp;Jyoti Tyagi,&nbsp;Misimi Kakoti,&nbsp;Anushka Patel,&nbsp;Soumyadeep Bhaumik","doi":"10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_151_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic diseases are a major contributor to mortality, morbidity, and socio-economic costs globally, including in India. Quality of life (QoL) is an important patient-centered outcome for chronic disease. Measurement properties of tools for assessing QOL in the Indian context have not been assessed systematically.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted, and four major electronic databases were searched. Screening was conducted by at least two independent reviewers, with a third person acting as an arbiter. Data from the retrieved full texts were extracted by one reviewer, with a sample verified by another reviewer to reduce any data extraction errors. A narrative synthesis was done with a focus on measurement properties of tools, including but not limited to internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, validity, and acceptability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 6706 records retrieved, a total of 37 studies describing 34 tools (both generic and disease-specific tools) for 16 chronic conditions were included. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n = 23). Overall, most tools had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha value ≥0.70) and good-to-excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.75-0.9), but there was variability in acceptability. In terms of acceptability, seven tools were positively assessed (meeting psychometric property requirements), but all except the World Health Organization QoL tool were disease specific. Many tools have also been tested for local context, and many translated and tested in one or few languages only, thus limiting their usability across the nation. Women were underrepresented in many studies, and tools were not evaluated in other genders. Generalizability to tribal people is also limited.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The scoping review provides a summary of all QOL assessment tools for people with chronic diseases in India. It supports future researchers to make informed decisions for choosing tools. The study highlights the need for more research to develop QOL tools which are contextually applicable and enables the comparability across diseases, people, and regions within India and potentially in the South Asian region.</p>","PeriodicalId":37393,"journal":{"name":"WHO South-East Asia journal of public health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WHO South-East Asia journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_151_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic diseases are a major contributor to mortality, morbidity, and socio-economic costs globally, including in India. Quality of life (QoL) is an important patient-centered outcome for chronic disease. Measurement properties of tools for assessing QOL in the Indian context have not been assessed systematically.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted, and four major electronic databases were searched. Screening was conducted by at least two independent reviewers, with a third person acting as an arbiter. Data from the retrieved full texts were extracted by one reviewer, with a sample verified by another reviewer to reduce any data extraction errors. A narrative synthesis was done with a focus on measurement properties of tools, including but not limited to internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, validity, and acceptability.

Results: Out of 6706 records retrieved, a total of 37 studies describing 34 tools (both generic and disease-specific tools) for 16 chronic conditions were included. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n = 23). Overall, most tools had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha value ≥0.70) and good-to-excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.75-0.9), but there was variability in acceptability. In terms of acceptability, seven tools were positively assessed (meeting psychometric property requirements), but all except the World Health Organization QoL tool were disease specific. Many tools have also been tested for local context, and many translated and tested in one or few languages only, thus limiting their usability across the nation. Women were underrepresented in many studies, and tools were not evaluated in other genders. Generalizability to tribal people is also limited.

Conclusion: The scoping review provides a summary of all QOL assessment tools for people with chronic diseases in India. It supports future researchers to make informed decisions for choosing tools. The study highlights the need for more research to develop QOL tools which are contextually applicable and enables the comparability across diseases, people, and regions within India and potentially in the South Asian region.

评估印度成人慢性疾病患者生活质量的工具:范围综述。
背景:慢性病是全球(包括印度)死亡率、发病率和社会经济成本的主要因素。生活质量(QoL)是慢性疾病重要的以患者为中心的预后指标。评估印度生活质量的工具的测量特性尚未得到系统评估。方法:进行范围综述,检索4个主要电子数据库。筛选由至少两名独立评审员进行,第三人担任仲裁者。检索全文中的数据由一名审稿人提取,并由另一名审稿人验证样本,以减少任何数据提取错误。对工具的度量属性进行了叙述性的综合,包括但不限于内部一致性、内部可靠性、测试-重测试可靠性、有效性和可接受性。结果:在检索到的6706条记录中,共纳入了37项研究,描述了针对16种慢性病的34种工具(包括通用工具和疾病特异性工具)。大多数研究是横断面的(n = 23)。总体而言,大多数工具具有可接受的内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha值≥0.70)和从优到优的重测信度(类内相关系数= 0.75-0.9),但可接受性存在差异。在可接受性方面,七个工具得到了积极评估(满足心理测量性质要求),但除了世界卫生组织的生活质量工具外,所有工具都是针对疾病的。许多工具还针对当地环境进行了测试,许多工具仅在一种或几种语言中进行了翻译和测试,从而限制了它们在全国范围内的可用性。在许多研究中,女性的代表性不足,并且没有对其他性别的工具进行评估。对部落人群的推广也是有限的。结论:范围审查提供了印度所有慢性病患者生活质量评估工具的总结。它支持未来的研究人员在选择工具时做出明智的决定。该研究强调需要进行更多的研究,以开发适用于具体情况的生活质量工具,并使印度境内以及可能在南亚地区的疾病、人群和区域之间具有可比性。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Public Health, Epidemiology, primary health care, epidemiology, health administration, health systems, health economics, health promotion, public health nutrition, communicable and non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, occupational and environmental health, social and preventive medicine. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信