ReviewJournal of public health research2026
Utility measurement tools and quality of life assessment of cleft care in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of public health research, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), there is a heavy burden on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of both people living with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and their families. In these places, there is little to no utility data for cost-effectiveness analysis. The existing condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and utility instruments were developed and validated in high-income countries (HIC). Therefore, there is a question on the effectiveness of these tools in SSA. This study systematically maps and appraises the utility measurement tools and HRQoL instruments applied in CL/P care across SSA, characterises their psychometric properties, and identifies gaps to inform instrument adaptation and development. Methods: The Population-Concept-Context framework was used to conduct a systematic review. Searches were performed across four databases. The inclusion criteria were a peer-reviewed quantitative study conducted in SSA with a CL/P population with a named, validated QoL or utility instrument. Results: Twelve studies from five SSA countries were included. While fourteen distinct HRQoL instruments were identified, only one study used a direct utility method. There were three condition-specific PROMs but none was formally validated in SSA. After quality appraisal, five studies were rated low, five were moderate and two had a high risk of bias. Across studies, CL/P had a significant association with low HRQoL. Conclusions: There is a paucity of utility data and SSA-validated HRQoL instruments for CL/P. The existing instruments when applied, are done without formal cultural adaptation. This is likely to lead to ineffective application, and uninformed conclusions and decision making.
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.