4.7 Review

Systematic review of health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcome measures in gestational trophoblastic disease: a parallel synthesis approach

期刊

LANCET ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 E56-E64

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30686-1

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research at the Sheffield School of Health and Related Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gestational trophoblastic disease is a rare complication of pregnancy that can develop into cancer. Medical outcomes of gestational trophoblastic disease are well researched, but the effect of the disease on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) requires attention if care is to be improved. This systematic review was designed to establish the effect of gestational trophoblastic disease and its treatment on HRQOL and to identify the appropriateness of HRQOL measures. Quantitative studies found HRQOL in long-term survivors of gestational trophoblastic disease to be at or above population norms. The disease had a negative effect on HRQOL for patients who experienced physical, psychological, and social sequelae related to the condition. Clinically significant levels of anxiety, depression, sexual dysfunction, and fertility-related distress were found in these patients. The results should be treated with caution because the evidence base was limited to small heterogeneous samples, data were retrospective, and a range of measures was used. Within qualitative studies on HRQOL for survivors of gestational trophoblastic disease, new conditions emerged, including nerve damage, fatigue, amenorrhoea, and grief. These areas are not captured in existing patient-reported outcome measures, and the content might not be valid for this population. Further qualitative research might lead to the development of a specific patient-reported outcome measure for gestational trophoblastic disease, providing reliable, meaningful, and valid assessments, and allowing longitudinal data to be obtained.

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