Health-Related Quality of Life Research in Jordan: A Systematic Review of Published Studies
Author(s)
Abeer A. Al Rabayah, MBA, MSc1, Razan D. Sawalha, MSc(HealthEcon)1, Duaa Muffarrej, PharmD2, Rachel S. Hicklen,, BSc3, Lina Arafeh, BSc Pharmacy2, Mariam Alodat, PharmD2;
1King Hussein Cancer Center, Center for Drug Policy & Technology Assessment, Amman, Jordan, 2King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan, 3The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, TX, USA
1King Hussein Cancer Center, Center for Drug Policy & Technology Assessment, Amman, Jordan, 2King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan, 3The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, TX, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is an essential health outcome. However, limited information is available about the scope and extent of using HRQoL outcomes in developing countries. This study aimed to systematically review published HRQoL research in Jordan.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted up to September 18, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched. Studies using any HRQoL tool in adults were included. Key study characteristics and methods assessed included study design, clinical area, population type, HRQoL tool type and mode of administration. Title and abstract screening were conducted independently by two reviewers using Rayyan software. Two researchers completed full-text screening. Disagreements were referred to a third reviewer if not resolved by discussion. Data were extracted using a standardized form. Results were summarized in evidence tables.
RESULTS: 1226 references were considered for title/abstract screening. In total, 193 studies were included and entered the data extraction phase with a total sample size of 51,119 subjects. 66% of the studies investigated patient populations, 14%of which targeted cancer diseases followed by cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Study design was observational study-cross sectional in 64% of the studies followed by Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) (9%) . The most commonly used disease specific tool was Quality of Life Index-Cancer version (QLI-C), while the most frequently used generic tool was the 36 QoL Short Form (SF-36) Scale. Preference based HRQoL tools was used in 10% of the studies with EuroQol Five-Dimensions (EQ-5D) being the most commonly used tool. The mode of tool administration was not reported in 6% of the studies, and funding was not reported in 30% of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies used cross-sectional designs and favored disease-specific HRQoL tools over generic ones. Reporting of mode of tools administration and funding information requires improvement.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted up to September 18, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched. Studies using any HRQoL tool in adults were included. Key study characteristics and methods assessed included study design, clinical area, population type, HRQoL tool type and mode of administration. Title and abstract screening were conducted independently by two reviewers using Rayyan software. Two researchers completed full-text screening. Disagreements were referred to a third reviewer if not resolved by discussion. Data were extracted using a standardized form. Results were summarized in evidence tables.
RESULTS: 1226 references were considered for title/abstract screening. In total, 193 studies were included and entered the data extraction phase with a total sample size of 51,119 subjects. 66% of the studies investigated patient populations, 14%of which targeted cancer diseases followed by cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Study design was observational study-cross sectional in 64% of the studies followed by Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) (9%) . The most commonly used disease specific tool was Quality of Life Index-Cancer version (QLI-C), while the most frequently used generic tool was the 36 QoL Short Form (SF-36) Scale. Preference based HRQoL tools was used in 10% of the studies with EuroQol Five-Dimensions (EQ-5D) being the most commonly used tool. The mode of tool administration was not reported in 6% of the studies, and funding was not reported in 30% of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies used cross-sectional designs and favored disease-specific HRQoL tools over generic ones. Reporting of mode of tools administration and funding information requires improvement.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
PCR1
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas