Home › Research › Costs and economics
Quality of life in dementia: a systematically conducted narrative review of dementia-specific measurement scales
Bowling A, Rowe G, Adams S, Sands P, Samsi K, Crane M, Joly L, Manthorpe J.. Aging & mental health, 2014-06-02
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Objectives Ascertaining the quality of life (QoL) in people with dementia is important for evaluating service outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This paper identifies QoL measures for people with dementia and assesses their properties. Method A systematic narrative review identified articles using dementia QoL measures. Electronic databases searched were AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Index to Theses, IBSS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science. All available years and languages (if with an English language abstract) were included. Results Searches yielded 6806 citations; 3043 were multiple duplicates (759 being true duplicates). Abstracts were read; 182 full papers were selected/obtained, of which 126 were included as relevant. Few measures were based on rigorous conceptual frameworks. Some referenced Lawton's model (Dementia Quality of Life [DQOL] and Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease [QOL-AD]), though these tapped part of this only; others claimed relationship to a health-related QoL concept (e.g. DEMQOL), though had less social relevance; others were based on limited domains (e.g. activity, affect) or clinical opinions (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia [QUALID]). Many measures were based on proxy assessments or observations of people with dementia's QoL, rather than their own ratings. The Bath Assessment of Subjective Quality of Life in Dementia (BASQID) was developed involving people with dementia and caregivers, but excluded some of their main themes. All measures were tested on selective samples only (ranging from community to hospital clinics, or subsamples/waves of existing population surveys), in a few sites. Their general applicability remains unknown, and predictive validity remains largely untested. Conclusion The lack of consensus on measuring QoL in dementia suggests a need for a broader, more rigorously tested QoL measure.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bowling, A., Rowe, G., Adams, S., Sands, P., Samsi, K., Crane, M., et al. (2015). Quality of life in dementia: a systematically conducted narrative review of dementia-specific measurement scales. Aging & mental health. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.915923
Vancouver
Bowling A, Rowe G, Adams S, Sands P, Samsi K, Crane M, et al. Quality of life in dementia: a systematically conducted narrative review of dementia-specific measurement scales. Aging & mental health. 2015. doi:10.1080/13607863.2014.915923. PMID: 24881888.
BibTeX
@article{bowling2015-24881888,
author = {Bowling, A. and Rowe, G. and Adams, S. and Sands, P. and Samsi, K. and Crane, M. and Joly, L. and Manthorpe, J.},
title = {{Quality of life in dementia: a systematically conducted narrative review of dementia-specific measurement scales}},
journal = {Aging \& mental health},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1080/13607863.2014.915923},
pmid = {24881888},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.915923}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Searches yielded 6806 citations; 3043 were multiple duplicates (759 being true duplicates).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Study designnarrative review
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging & mental health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24881888) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Costs and economics
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.