4.3 Review

Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review

Journal

SPINAL CORD
Volume 48, Issue 6, Pages 438-450

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2009.164

Keywords

quality of life; spinal cord injuries; outcome assessment; validity; reliability

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. SCI Solutions Network
  3. Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study design: A systematic review. Objective: To critically review quality of life (QOL) instruments used with spinal cord injury (SCI) populations. Setting: Vancouver, Canada. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted for publications assessing the measurement properties of QOL outcome measures. Pre-established criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties. Results: Fourteen articles reporting on 13 QOL instruments met the inclusion criteria, including the Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM), Quality of Well-being Scale, Qualiveen, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP68), Short Form (SF)-36, SF-36V, SF-12, SF-6D, Quality of Life Index, Quality of Life Profile for Adults with Physical Disabilities (QOLP-PD), Satisfaction with Life Scale, Sense of Well-being Index (SWBI), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF scale (WHOQOL-BREF). The SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF have been widely used and validated. The SIP68, QOLP-PD, SF-36V, and SWBI are promising with limited investigation. The Qualiveen and PRISM performed well and are specific to SCI complications. Conclusion: The WHOQOL-BREF is presently the most acceptable and established instrument to assess QOL after SCI. The SIP68, QOLP-PD, SF-36V, and SWBI are promising; however, require further evaluation of their measurement properties. Spinal Cord (2010) 48, 438-450; doi: 10.1038/sc.2009.164; published online 22 December 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available