ArticleJournal of multimorbidity and comorbidity
Patient-reported quality of life (QoL) measurements in adults with multiple long-term conditions: A scoping review protocol.
Article in Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidity. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review will systematically map the evidence on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) used to assess quality of life (QoL) in adults with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) across all healthcare and community settings. Rationale: Research on patient-reported QoL in adults with MLTC is limited. Existing measures are mostly generic and may lack sensitivity to the complexity and heterogeneity of MLTC. This review will examine PROMs used in MLTC research, and identify gaps in QoL measurement. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria: Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies, and pre-specified grey literature, reporting QoL tools for adults with any combination of physical and/or mental MLTC will be included. Single conditions, comorbidity, or non-adult populations will be excluded. Methods: Following established scoping review guidelines, a systematic search strategy, developed with a librarian, will cover fivedatabases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL), plus grey literature and citation tracking. English-language publications with no restrictions on geographic location or publication date will be considered. After de-duplication, two reviewers will independently screen citations based on predefined inclusion criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved with a third reviewer. A pre-specified data extraction form to capture qualitative and quantitative data will be pilot tested. An 11-member patient and public advisory group will be established and stakeholder consultation will be conducted. Findings will be summarised using tables, figures and narrative synthesis and disseminated widely for multiple audiences. Discussion: This review will highlight QoL measurement gaps, inform future development of tailored QoL PROMs for MLTC populations, and contribute to national or global MLTC research priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.