Overview and Quantitative Analysis of Glioma Palliative Care Assessment Scales: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Abstract Background: Patients diagnosed with glioma face substantial challenges with poor prognosis, high symptom burden and care needs. The scope of palliative care has also been defined by the WHO (World Health Organization). Palliative care for glioma has no clear and precise scope. Assessment scales in the setting of palliative care for patients with glioma that are used to assess the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs among others. However, the assessment scales used in palliative care (PC) for glioma were varied. Purpose: The aim of this study was to gather a comprehensive range of palliative care requirements specific to glioma patients, along with the evaluation tools employed. To present an overview and quantitative analysis of assessment scales utilized to evaluate the palliative care issues and symptom burden suffered by patients with glioma throughout their illness. Methods: The reporting of this systematic review is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a generalized search for articles in the Pubmed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. The quantitative study was defined as studies that utilized one or more scales to evaluate the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs in patients with glioma. All screened articles were assessed for eligibility and underwent two rounds of collaborative selection. Results: A total of 3218 studies were screened, from which 74 scales were extracted from 70 articles and utilized 178 times. The scales cover mood, quality of life (QoL), supportive care needs, symptoms, caregiver assessment, ability of living, social support, cognitive, performance status, personality, and others. The largest number of scales was in the mood category (n=15), followed by supportive care needs (n=13), QoL (n=11), and the smallest number of scales in the personality (n=2) and performance status (n=2). The most frequently used scales were QoL (f=41, 23%), mood (f=40, 22%), and supportive care needs (f=24, 13%), and the least frequently used scales were personality (n=4, 2.2%) and others (n=3, 1.6%). Most of the studies focus on mood, QoL, supportive care needs, and symptom assessment. Conclusions: We have provided the first systematic statistical analysis of assessment scales used in palliative care for glioma, which reflects of how established different areas of research are. The scales used were varied and inconsistent, future researchers can refer to the scales according to the research questions and population characteristics.