Tools to assess the quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The clinical, social, and economic implications of Parkinson’s disease (PD) are significant; disability occurs leading to a low quality of life (QoL). Information on the QoL of patients with PD and studies on the relationship between QoL and motor and cognitive function are necessary for both research and clinical use to make informed decisions in healthcare and rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to determine which scales are most used to assess QoL in patients with PD.

Area covered

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two authors independently identified eligible studies based on predefined inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Study quality and the risk of bias were assessed using the COSMIN checklist.

Expert opinion

116 suitable studies were included, and 42 different instruments were identified. The most frequently used scales were the 39-items and 8-items Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) (PDQ-8). These findings suggest further investigation of existing PD outcome measures would benefit patients, researchers, and clinicians. Validated, universal outcome measures are required to allow comparisons across practice; therefore, we recommend that future researchers use a common set of outcome assessments based on the results of this review.

KEYWORDS:

• Assessment tool
• outcome measure
• Parkinson’s disease
• psychometric properties
• quality of life
• systematic review
• validation

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.