Introduction
Materials and methods
Eligibility criteria
Data sources and search strategy
Selection of studies and data extraction
Assessment of study quality
Evaluation of measurement properties
H1 | Correlations with (changes in) instruments measuring similar constructs should be high (≥ 0.5) |
H2 | Correlations with (changes in) instruments measuring related, but dissimilar constructs should be at least moderate (≥ 0.3) |
H3 | Correlations with (changes in) instruments measuring weakly related constructs should be at least weak (≥ 0.1) |
H4 | Correlations with (changes in) instruments measuring unrelated constructs should be negligible (< 0.1) |
H5 | |
H6 | For responsiveness (criterion approach), AUC should be ≥ 0.7 |
H7 | HrQoL may decreases with age, but not necessarily, given the circumstances that this review focusses only on middle-old to oldest-old people |
H8 | Higher education level/social class might be associated with higher HrQoL, but not necessarily, since the differences may no longer be present in this age group (in later life, lifestyle factors such as physical activity become more important [103]) |
H9 | Lower cognitive status is hypothesized to be associated with lower HrQoL in institutionalized people and/or people with severe dementia, whereas this association may not be visible in people with mild to moderate dementia or non-institutionalized people [102] |
Summary and grading of the quality of evidence
Results
Search results
General characteristics of the articles
Ref | Population | Disease/population characteristics | Instrumental administration | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N* | Age Mean (SD, range) | % female | Disease/other characteristics of the study population/recruited from | Disease duration | Disease severity | Interview administration mode | Country | |
EQ-5D-3L | ||||||||
Ankri et al. [39] | 142 | 82.9 (8.3) (60–99) | 79.6% | PwD; hospitalized, institutionalized, or outpatients; recruited from geriatric hospital centers | N.R | 47.1% moderate, 27.9% severe | Assisted interviews | France |
Barton et al. [40] | 392 | N.R.1 | N.R | Registered in one general practice | N.A | N.A | N.R | UK |
Brazier et al. [42] | 377 | 80.1 (4.5) | 100% | Older women, 86.5% long-standing illness or disability; recruited from four general practices into a RCT of clodronate | N.A | N.A | N.R | UK |
Coast et al. [43] | 214 | 792 (74–84)3 | 70% | Elderly acute care patients being suitable for rehabilitation in their own home (mainly fractured neck of the femur, elective hip and knee replacements, other fractures, and stroke) | N.A | N.A | N.R | UK |
Davis et al. [44] | 215 | 79.3 (6.2) | 71.6% | Older adults at risk of mobility impairment and a fall history; visiting the Vancouver falls prevention clinic | N.A | N.A | N.R | Canada |
Davis et al. [45] | 356 | 82 (6.5) | 63% | Older adults at risk of mobility impairment and a fall history; visiting the Vancouver falls prevention clinic | N.A | N.A | N.R | Canada |
Frihagen et al. [46] | 222 (complete cases at follow-up: n = 79) | 82.8 (7.48) | 74% | Patients with displaced femoral neck fracture | N.R | n = 23 complication group, n = 56 non-complication group | Outpatient clinic and home visits | Norway |
Hazell et al. [47] | 721 | N.R.1 | N.R | Registered in two general practices | N.A | N.A | Postal questionnaire | UK |
Heiskanen et al. [48] | 36 | N.R.1 | N.R | Patients admitted for CABG operation | N.A | > 60% Canadian cardiovascular society class 3 or 4 (indicating lower functional status) | As part of the preoperative hospital admission process (baseline) and via postal survey (follow-up) | Finland |
Holland et al. [49] | 145 | 84.7 | 57% | People taking ≥ 2 medications; admitted to hospital as an emergency; to be discharged from hospital and returning home/to a warden control accommodation | N.A | Median of 6 daily drugs | Assisted (baseline) interviews | UK |
Jönsson et al. [50] | 272 | 75.9 | 62.3 | PwAD, recruited among patients attending regular visits at memory clinics; community dwelling or in residential care | Diagnosed on average 1.6 years prior to inclusion | MMSE > 25 to MMSE < 10 | N.R | Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway |
Kaambwa et al. [51] | 87 | 80 (65–93) | 66% | Receiving community aged care services, but cognitively intact | N.A | N.A | Group setting in central venues (research team just there for clarification of questions) | Australia |
Karlawish et al. [52] | 93 | 76.8 (2.7) (55–91) | 45% | PwAD, not living in care homes, receiving CG assistance; recruited from geriatric medicine practice or memory clinic | N.R | Mild to moderate AD (71% very mild) | Assisted interviews at the participant’s/CG’s home or other convenient location | USA |
Kim et al. [53] | 2826 | N.R.1 | 0% | General male adult population sample, participating in Korean community health survey | N.A | 57% moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms | Face-to-face interviews | |
Kunz [54] | 390 | 80.2 (6.7) (65–100) | 68% | PwD, living at home and supported by a family caregiver; recruited via general practitioners | N.R | Mild to moderate | Assessed at GP practices by trained GP and medical secretary | Germany |
Lutomski et al. [55] | 25,637 | 78 (6) | 58.3% | Community-dwelling older persons aged 65+; recruited from primary care centers, hospitals, or the general population | N.A | 73% with hearing issues, joint damage, urinary incontinence, and/or dizziness with falls | N.R | Netherlands |
Malkin et al. [56] | 77 | 772 (27–98) | 71% | Low-vision patients; presenting for low-vision rehabilitation at private outpatient centers | N.R | 55% macular disorders | Telephone interview before 1st visit at low vision rehabilitation site | USA |
Michalowsky et al. [57] | 560 | 79.03 (8.5) | 59.1% | PwD, living in the community; supported by informal CG | N.R | N.R | Face-to-face interview | Germany |
Naglie et al. [58] | 57 | 78.6 (53.8–93.7) | 61.7% | PwAD, supported by a family CG; recruited from dementia clinics & geriatric practices | N.R | Mild to moderate | Assisted interview at participant’s home/referring clinic | Canada |
Olerud et al. [59] | 145 | 74.7 (9.6) (55–93) | 84% | Patients with acute proximal humeral fracture; living non-institutionalized; no severe cognitive dysfunction | N.A | 2-part to 4-part fractures | N.R | Sweden |
Orgeta et al. [60] | 478 | 75.5 (7.3) | 49.6% | PwD living in the community; supported by carers assisting with ADL | N.R | Mild (74.6%) to moderate (25.4%) dementia | Assisted interview | UK |
Parsons et al. [61] | 225 (sample 1) 249 (sample 2) | 83.1 (7.94) 83.6 (7.77) | 71% 75% | Patients with hip fracture | N.A | 32% and 41% PwD | Face to face at BL; telephone interview at 4 week, 4 month & 12 month FU | UK |
Pérez-Ros and Marínez-Arnau [62] | 251 | 84.6 (9.22) (70–104) | 76.9% | Nursing home residents with cognitive impairment | N.A | Mean MMSE score: 15.6 (5.23) | Face-to-face interview | Spain |
Pérez-Ros et al. [63] | 188 | 79.19 (5.18) (70–95) | 64.9% | Community-dwelling older people with cognitive impairment | N.A | MMSE scores 10–24 | Face-to-face interview | Spain |
Sanchez-Arenas et al. [64] | 109 | 78.5 (7.09) | 64.2% | PwD; community dwelling | N.A | N.R | In-home face-to-face interview | Mexico |
Tidermark et al. [65] | 110 | 80.0 (70–96) | 79% | People with acute displaced femoral neck fractures; no severe cognitive impairment | Fractures ≤ 24 h. old | 51% total hip replacement, 49% internal fixation | Structured interview at initial hospital stay and at 4 months | Sweden |
Tidermark & Bergström [66] | 59 | 82.9 (5.4) (70–92) | 100% | Women with acute femoral neck fractures; no severe cognitive impairment | Fractures ≤ 24 h. old | N.A | Structured interview at initial hospital stay and at 6 months | Sweden |
van Leeuwen et al. [67] | 190 | 82.4 (7.7) | 71.6% | Frail older adults living at home; recruited from general practices | N.A | N.A | Interview at participants’ homes | Netherlands |
Walters et al. [68] | 233 | 752 | 66.5% | People with venous leg ulcers | present for ≥ 3 months | N.R | Community clinic setting | UK |
EQ-5D-5L | ||||||||
Aguirre et al. [69] | 272 | 82.6 (8.1) (52–100) | 61% | PwD; recruited from community (58%) and care homes (42%) | N.R | Mild to moderate | N.R | UK |
Bjerk et al. [70] | 155 | 82.7 (6.7) | 79.3% | Older home-care recipients; experienced ≥ 1 fall in previous 12 months, not cognitively impaired; recruited from lists of people receiving professional home care | N.A | N.A | Interviewed in participants’ homes by trained research assistants | Norway |
Cheng et al. [71] | 80 | 75 (13.88) (30–95) | 59% | People with venous leg ulcers; recruited from 2 communities, 1 specialist & 1 hospital outpatient wound clinic | 0–369 months | Venous insufficiency (41%), reduced mobility (81%) | N.R | Australia |
Easton et al. [72] | 143 | 85.7 (8.8) (49–99) | 72% | Residential care setting | N.A | 45% mild or moderate cognitive impairment, 25% dementia | N.R | Australia |
Griffiths et al. [73] | 726 (377 completed self-report measures) | 85.6 (7.64) (57–102) | 73.8% | PwD, living in care homes | N.R. | N.R | N.R | UK |
Martin et al. [74] | 1004 | 85.5 (58–103) | 73.2% | PwD, living in residential care | N.A | N.A | Recruited from care homes | UK |
Nikolova et al. [75] | 1038 | N.R (75% 75–84, 25% 85+) | 52.7% | Community-dwelling older people; recruited from general practices | N.A | 20.2% fit, 51.4% pre-frail, 28.4% frail | Face-to-face interview | UK |
Ratcliffe et al. [76] | 240 (EQ-5D self-completed: n = 82) | 88.6 (5.6) | 74.2% | Patients with hip fracture, living in residential aged care; recruited from acute orthopedic wards | N.A | 93% moderate/severe dementia | N.R | Australia |
EQ-5D-3L & EQ-5D-5L | ||||||||
Bhadhuri et al. [41] | 224 | 77.5 (5.35) | 43.8% | People with multimorbidity and polypharmacy participating in a structured medication review RCT | N.A | N.A | Telephone interview | Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland |
Evidence synthesis (Measurement properties)
Measurement property | Summary | Overall rating | Quality of evidence |
---|---|---|---|
Reliability | – | very low | |
± | N/A | ||
Construct validity | |||
Convergent validity | + (91%) | high | |
HrQoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.5) | + (83%) | high | |
QoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | + (100%) | high | |
General health/QoL (single-scale) (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | + (100%) | high | |
ADL (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | + (86%) | moderate | |
IADL (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | + (80%) | moderate | |
Comorbidities (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | + (100%) | high | |
Cognitive status/dementia severity (Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | + (100%) | moderate | |
Depression/anxiety (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | ± (60%) | N/A | |
Other instruments | + (100%) | high | |
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | OHS [61]: 0.70–0.77 | ||
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | |||
(Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | |||
Known-groups validity | ± (67%) | N/A | |
Supported for groups of… | Ageb [42, 43, 49, 55, 68], sex [49, 51], social classb [49], education levelb [51, 55], general health [51, 52, 57], mental & physical functioning (SF-12) [52], QoL-AD Score/Whole/Memory [52], IADL impairment (Lawton & Brody) [52, 57], disability severity [42], walking ability [68], number of medications [49], lower urinary tract symptom severity [53], obstructive airways disease (y/n) [47], depression (GDS) [52, 57], hospital stay (y/n) [42], multimorbidity [55], longstanding illness (y/n) [42], cognition (MMSE)b [52], confusion (mental test score)b [49], memory problems (GDS Memory)b [52], | ||
Rejected for groups of… | Ageb [51], sex [55], living situation (alone vs. not alone/other arrangement) [49, 51, 55], informal care support (y/n) [51], marital status [55], GP visit (y/n) [42], outpatient attendance (y/n) [42], accident/emergency department attendance (y/n) [42], ADL impairment (higher vs. lower, Lawton-Brody) [52], only dementia vs. dementia + additional comorbidity [54], leg ulcer size and duration [68], functional impairment due to dementia [57], QoL-AD Life [52] | ||
Responsiveness | |||
Construct approach | − (22%) | high | |
HrQoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.5) | − (0%) | high | |
QoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | ± (33%) | high | |
General health/QoL (single-scale) (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | − (0%) | high | |
ADL (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | − (0%) | moderate | |
IADL (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | − (0%) | high | |
Cognitive status/dementia severity (Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | + (100%) | low | |
Other instruments | n = 371 | ± (50%) | N/A |
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | DASH [59]: 0.47 | ||
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | |||
(Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | CCCQ [67]: 0.09 | ||
Comparison between subgroups | + (79%) | moderate | |
Supported for groups of… | Improvement/worsening on the Barthel index [41], knee replacement vs. femur fracture [43], femur fracture vs. stroke [43], fallers vs. non-fallers [45], complication vs. non-complication after femoral neck fracture [46], deterioration in health status (CGI-I) [54], less good vs. good outcome after femoral neck fracture (pain and/or needing walking aids) [65], perceived health change and healing status in people with venous leg ulcers [68], complications/non-complications after femoral neck fracture [46], improvement/deterioration status (DASH) after proximal humeral fracture [59], death/non-death after hip fracture [61], displaced/undisplaced femoral neck fractures [66] | ||
Rejected for groups of… | |||
Before and after intervention | |||
Supported for… | + (100%) | high | |
Rejected for … | – (0%) | moderate |
Measurement property | Summary or pooled results | Overall rating | Quality of evidence |
---|---|---|---|
Reliability | N/R | ||
Construct validity | |||
Convergent validity | + (84%) | High | |
HrQoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.5) | + (100%) | High | |
QoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | + (83%) | High | |
General health/QoL (single scale) (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | + (100%) | Moderate | |
ADL (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | + (100%) | High | |
Cognitive status (Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | ± (67%) | N/A | |
Other instruments | n = 1113 | + (80%) | High |
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | |||
(Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | |||
Known-groups validity | + (78%) | High | |
Supported for Groups of… | |||
Rejected for groups of… | |||
Responsiveness | |||
Construct approach | + (75%) | High | |
QoL instruments (Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | − (0%) | Moderate | |
Cognitive status (Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | + (100%) | High | |
Other instruments | + (83%) | High | |
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.3) | BBS [70]: Elasticity = 0.54 | ||
(Hypothesis: r ≥ 0.1) | |||
(Hypothesis: r < 0.3) | CMAI [74]: β = n.s | ||
Comparison between subgroups | n = 269 | + (75%) | High |
Supported for groups of… | |||
Rejected for groups of… | Improvement/worsening on the EQ-VAS [41] | ||
Before and after intervention | N/R |