IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v19y2010i19-20p2673-2703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review of health‐related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties

Author

Listed:
  • Simon J Palfreyman
  • Angela M Tod
  • John E Brazier
  • Jonathan A Michaels

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To review the quality of life questionnaires used to measure the impact of venous ulceration and to evaluate their psychometric properties. Background. Venous leg ulcers have a negative impact on quality of life. Health‐related quality of life can be measured using structured questionnaires. Nurses are the primary care providers for patients with venous ulceration and are ideally placed to assess and develop these types of questionnaires. There may also be an opportunity to use such quality of life instruments to measure the impact of nursing interventions in other areas where nurses are the key care providers. Design. Systematic review. Method. Studies were sought that used quality of life instruments to evaluate the impact of venous ulceration. Fourteen electronic bibliographical databases and 11 Internet‐based health services research related resources were searched. In addition, grey literature was sought and the reference lists of relevant articles checked. Data were extracted regarding the type of instrument used, sample, number of items and domains and psychometric performance of the instrument. Results. The initial search identified a total of 338 potential citations. After review, a total of 31 studies were included: 17 used generic and 14 used disease‐specific instruments. Five different types of generic and seven disease‐specific instruments were identified. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies in terms of study design, aetiology of ulceration and times of assessment. The disease‐specific instruments showed limitations in relation to their applicability to venous ulcer patients because of flaws in design or validation. Conclusions. The literature on quality of life related to venous ulceration failed to sufficiently distinguish between those with different causes of leg ulceration. There appeared to be problems with the ability of current quality of life instruments to detect changes in quality of life related to ulcer healing. Relevance to clinical practice. There appears to be an opportunity for nurses to develop a health‐related quality of life health‐related quality of life instruments to evaluate their impact on patient outcomes. Such instruments could potentially allow nursing interventions to be assessed more effectively than the recently proposed nursing metrics.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon J Palfreyman & Angela M Tod & John E Brazier & Jonathan A Michaels, 2010. "A systematic review of health‐related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2673-2703, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:19-20:p:2673-2703
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03269.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03269.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03269.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. John Brazier & Simon Dixon, 1995. "The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 255-264, July.
    3. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    4. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    2. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    3. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    4. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    5. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    6. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    7. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    8. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    9. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    10. Adedokun Oluwafemi Ojelabi & Afolabi Elijah Bamgboye & Jonathan Ling, 2019. "Preference-based measure of health-related quality of life and its determinants in sickle cell disease in Nigeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    11. McCabe, C & Brazier, J & Gilks, P & Tsuchiya, A & Roberts, J & O'Hagan, A & Stevens, K, 2004. "Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from individual ordinal (rank) health state preference data," MPRA Paper 29759, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    14. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    15. Benjamin M. Craig & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2011. "Toward a more universal approach in health valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(7), pages 864-875, July.
    16. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G.M. & Chorus, Astrid M.J. & Taeke van Beekum, W. & Detmar, Symone B. & van den Hout, Wilbert B., 2006. "Modelling and estimation of valuations for the Dutch London Handicap Scale," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1119-1138, November.
    17. G. Kobelt & B. Jönsson, 2008. "The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: outcome and cost-utility of treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 95-106, January.
    18. Yeon Wook Kim & Chang-Hoon Lee & Young Sik Park & Yu-Il Kim & Chul Min Ahn & Ju-Ock Kim & Joo Hun Park & Sang Haak Lee & Jae Yeol Kim & Eun Mi Chun & Tae Hoon Jung & Kwang Ha Yoo, 2015. "Effect of Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke on the Quality of Life: A Nationwide Population-Based Study from South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    19. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    20. Janelle Seymour & Paul McNamee & Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli, 2010. "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 683-696, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:19-20:p:2673-2703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.