Abstract
Background
The area of palliative care is a setting in which the evaluation of the quality of life (QoL) is fundamental. However, the topic has been covered from many different points of view, and there is a lack of comprehensive synthesis of the evidence drawn from the available literature.
Objective
We carried out a meta-review of all available systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have dedicated part or most of the investigation to the assessment of QoL in palliative care to provide the most updated and comprehensive depiction of all available information about measurement and intervention aimed at improving QoL in palliative care.
Methods
A meta-review of all recent (5 years) available systematic reviews and meta-analyses on “palliative care” and “quality of life” was carried out. The quality of the extracted studies was assessed with the AMSTAR scale.
Results
The search extracted 24 systematic reviews, 14 systematic reviews followed by a meta-analysis on a subset of data, and 2 meta-analyses. In many studies, the investigation of QoL represented a secondary or even marginal outcome. In general, the results supported the efficacy of palliative care in terminal patients or patients with a permanent disability. However, the quality of the studies had a strong influence on the chance that some improvement in QoL was found in relation to palliative care. Studies of lower quality were more likely to report some efficacy of palliative care than studies with better quality.
Conclusion
The investigation of QoL in palliative care is understudied. In many studies, QoL is a secondary outcome, and there is some tendency to use a disparate range of tools to measure it, whose reliability and validity should still be established in some groups of patients.
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Reference44 articles.
1. National cancer control programmes : Policies and managerial guidelines,
World Health Organization 2nd ed. .
2002.
Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42494
2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
BMJ
2021;
372
(71)
: n71.
3. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al.
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
BMC Med Res Methodol
2007;
7
(1)
: 10.
4. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al.
AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
J Clin Epidemiol
2009;
62
(10)
: 1013-20.
5. Salakari MRJ, Surakka T, Nurminen R, Pylkkänen L.
Effects of rehabilitation among patients with advances cancer: A systematic review.
Acta Oncol
2015;
54
(5)
: 618-28.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献