Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Conceptional and Methodological Rigor in Quality of Life (QoL) Research

Recent measurements of Quality of Life (QoL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR QoL) have been inadequate in terms of conceptual and methodological rigor. More comprehensive measures are required to assess its impact on health, disease, therapy, and medical decision-making for individuals and populations.

Geography: United States; Focus Area: Measuring healthcare quality of life

According to the definition by World Health Organization (WHO), QoL relates to the perception of an individual about the position in life in context of their culture and in relation to expectations, goals, concerns, and standards. HR-QoL refers to the measure of a duration of life that is influenced by functional states, impairments, disease, injury, treatment, opportunities, perceptions, and policy. 

Why QoL Assessment is Important

An assessment of QoL measure is important as the focus on outcomes has recently shifted from biomedical to QoL outcomes in the context of health, care delivery, and rehabilitation of patients. Self-reported QoL can show problems affecting patients, improvements in treatment, and efficacy of therapies. QoL measures disability status and daily functioning. It can help understand the consequences of disease and treatment of patient populations. Other important implications of QoL include understanding problems occurring later on, prognosis, and medical decision-making. Therefore, it makes sense to assess QoL on a routine basis in clinical trials. Besides, what exactly is measured by QoL must be determined.

Systematic Review Snapshot of QoL Research

Haraldstad and team (2019) explored research related to Quality of Life (QoL) in the research and health sciences domains. Most research studies in the recent years have focus on Quality of Life (QoL) and Health Related Quality of Life (HR QoL). However, these studies have not been evaluated for methodological and conceptual rigor. In their systematic review, researchers used the Gill and Feinstein criteria to evaluate QoL research. 

The studies included in the systematic review focused on heart disease, mental illness, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and gastrointestinal disease. A number of patient groups, QoL measures, and research designs (descriptive, experimental, longitudinal) were used in the studies included. The studies represented a global sample, mostly from developed countries.

Final Thoughts

Scientists found that inconsistencies in QoL research were due to a lack of conceptual clarity, and absence of a uniform definition of QoL. They indicated that theories and theoretical frameworks improve QoL understanding and develop new knowledge. Theoretical thinking also forms the basis of hypothesis generation. However, researchers indicated several limitations such as the snapshot not being fully representative of QoL research, studies evaluated limited only to the English language, and the criteria developed to assess rigor not being recent, making its validity questionable. In effect, researchers must invest greater time and effort in planning conceptual and methodological issues when designing QoL studies. 

Promotion: Health-related quality of life in cardiovascular patients Paperback – Import, 20 September 2014 by Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz (Editor), Marek Klocek (Editor), Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk (Editor), Christopher J. Bulpitt (Editor)

     

Keywords

treatment, disease, population health, methodological rigor, functional state, medical decision-making, conceptual rigor, HR QoL, quality of life, QoL research, QoL, health related Quality of Life

References

Haraldstad, K., Wahl, A., Andenæs, R., Andersen, J. R., Andersen, M. H., Beisland, E., Borge, C. R., Engebretsen, E., Eisemann, M., Halvorsrud, L., Hanssen, T. A., Haugstvedt, A., Haugland, T., Johansen, V. A., Larsen, M. H., Løvereide, L., Løyland, B., Kvarme, L. G., Moons, P., & Norekvål, T. M. (2019). A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Quality of Life Research, 28(10), 2641–2650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9

No comments:

Post a Comment

Editor's Choice