The Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Quality of Life in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that palliative care was not associated with improvement in quality of life (QOL) in terminal noncancer illness. Among potential reasons for a null effect, it is unclear if patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring QOL were derived or validated among populations with advanced life-limiting illness (ALLI). Objective: To systematically review the derivation and validation of QOL PROMs from a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of palliative care interventions in people with terminal noncancer illness. Evidence Review: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 8, 2023 for primary validation studies of QOL PROMs in populations with ALLI, defined as adults with a progressive terminal condition and an estimated median survival of less than or equal to one year. The primary outcome was the proportion of PROMs that were derived or validated in ≥1 ALLI population. Findings: Twenty-one unique studies of derivation ( n = 13) and validation ( n = 11, 3 studies evaluated both) provided data on 9657 participants (mean age 63 years, 50% female) across 15 unique QOL PROMs and subscales. Among studies of validation, 9 were in people with cancer ( n = 2289, n = 5 PROMs), 1 in neurodegenerative disease ( n = 23, n = 1 PROM), and 1 with mixed diseases ( n = 248, n = 1 PROM). Across 15 QOL PROMs and subscales, 47% ( n = 7) were derived or validated in an ALLI population. The majority of these seven PROMs were exclusively derived or validated among people with cancer (57%, n = 4). QOL PROMs such as Quality of Life at End of Life, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-level, and 36-item Short Form Survey demonstrated validity in more than one terminal noncancer illness. Conclusions: Most QOL PROMs that measured the effect of palliative care on QOL in RCTs were neither derived nor validated in an ALLI population. These findings raise questions about the inferences that palliative care does not improve QOL among people with terminal noncancer illness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".