You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Qualitative research
Original research
Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review
  1. Sonia Lorente1,2,
  2. Carme Viladrich1,
  3. Jaume Vives1,3,
  4. Josep-Maria Losilla1,3
  1. 1Department of Psychobiology and Methodology of Health Science. Area of Behavioral Science Methodology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallés, Barcelona, Spain
  2. 2Pediatric Area, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Terrassa, Spain
  3. 3Sport Research Institute, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jaume Vives; Jaume.Vives{at}uab.cat

Abstract

Objective This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews.

Design Meta-review.

Methods Electronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Results A total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness).

Conclusions The reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017065232.

  • qualitative research
  • quality in health care
  • statistics & research methods
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @VivesJ_Research, @jmlosilla

    • Contributors All authors meet the criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE. All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, piloted the inclusion criteria and provided the direction of the data extraction and analysis. SL drafted the article and JV, CV and J-ML critically revised the draft for important intellectual content. All authors agreed on the final version.

    • Funding This work was supported by the Grant PGC2018-100675-B-I00, Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Spain).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request to the authors.