4.7 Review

Multimorbidity and quality of life: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

期刊

AGEING RESEARCH REVIEWS
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2019.04.005

关键词

Multimorbidity; Comorbidity; Quality of life; Health-related quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multimorbidity is typically defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic diseases within an individual. Its prevalence is highest among the elderly, with poor quality of life (QoL) being one of the major consequences. This study aims to: (1) understand the relationship between multimorbidity and QoL or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) through systematic literature review; (2) explore the strength of this association by conducting the first meta-analysis on the subject. Following PRISMA, Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for studies published through September 1st, 2018. Original studies with clear operationalization of multimorbidity and validated QoL (or HRQoL) measurement were retained. For random-effect meta-analysis, a minimum of three studies with the same multimorbidity tool (e.g. number of diseases or equal comorbidity index) and the same QoL tool were required. Number of diseases was most common and the only measure on which meta-analysis was carried out. The outcome of interest was the linear regression slope between increasing number of diseases and QoL. Heterogeneity was explored with meta-regression. Out of 25,890 studies initially identified, 74 studies were retained for systematic review (total of 2,500,772 participants), of which 39 were included in the meta-analysis. The mean decrease in HRQoL per each added disease, depending on the scale, ranged from: - 1.55% (95%CI: -2.97%, -0.13%) for the mental component summary score of pooled SF-36, -12 and -8 scales to -4.37% (95%CI: -7.13%, - 1.61%) for WHOQoL-BREF physical health domain. Additional studies considering severity, duration and patterns of diseases are required to further clarify this association.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据