Rimmer B, Jenkins R, Russell S, Craig D, Sharp L, Exley C. Assessing quality of life in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review of the development, content, and quality of available condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures.
Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2024;
38:100836. [PMID:
38359538 DOI:
10.1016/j.trre.2024.100836]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2023] [Revised: 02/08/2024] [Accepted: 02/11/2024] [Indexed: 02/17/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE
We aimed to identify the condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure quality of life (QoL) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, examine their development and content, and critically appraise the quality of their measurement properties, to inform recommendations for clinical and research use.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 27th January 2023. Search hits were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers; papers reporting the development and/or validation of condition- and transplant-specific PROMs measuring QoL in adult SOT recipients were considered eligible. We abstracted and synthesised data on PROM characteristics, development (item generation and/or reduction), and content (QoL dimensions). Quality appraisal and synthesis were informed by the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and included methodological and quality assessment of measurement properties, GRADE levels of evidence, feasibility and interpretability.
RESULTS
We identified 33 papers reporting 26 QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients (kidney n = 10 PROMs; liver n = 6; lung n = 3; heart n = 2; pancreas n = 1; multiple organs n = 4). Patient discussions (n = 17 PROMs) and factor analysis (n = 11) were the most common item generation and reduction techniques used, respectively. All PROMs measured ≥3 of nine QoL dimensions (all measured emotional functioning); KDQoL-SF and NIDDK-QA measured all nine. Methodological quality was variable; no PROM had low evidence or better for all measurement properties. All PROMs were COSMIN recommendation category 'B', primarily because none had sufficient content validity.
CONCLUSIONS
There are many condition- and transplant-specific QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients, particularly kidney. These findings can help inform PROM selection for clinicians and researchers. However, caution is required when adopting measures, due to the substantial heterogeneity in development, content, and quality. Each PROM has potential but requires further research to be recommendable. Greater consideration of patient and professional involvement in PROM development in this setting is needed to ensure sufficient content validity.
Collapse