PurposeQuality of life (QOL) is an important concept in the field of health and medicine. QOL is a complex concept that is interpreted and defined differently within and between disciplines, including the fields of health and medicine. The aims of this study were to systematically review the literature on QOL in medicine and health research and to describe the country of origin, target groups, instruments, design, and conceptual issues.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify research studies on QOL and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The databases Scopus, which includes Embase and MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published during one random week in November 2016. The ten predefined criteria of Gill and Feinstein were used to evaluate the conceptual and methodological rigor.ResultsQOL research is international and involves a variety of target groups, research designs, and QOL measures. According to the criteria of Gill and Feinstein, the results show that only 13% provided a definition of QOL, 6% distinguished QOL from HRQOL. The most frequently fulfilled criteria were: (i) stating the domains of QOL to be measured; (ii) giving a reason for choosing the instruments used; and (iii) aggregating the results from multiple items.ConclusionQOL is an important endpoint in medical and health research, and QOL research involves a variety of patient groups and different research designs. Based on the current evaluation of the methodological and conceptual clarity of QOL research, we conclude that the majority QOL studies in health and medicine have conceptual and methodological challenges.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

A 3-month motivational interviewing intervention following CHT had positive overall effects on disease severity, self-efficacy, psoriasis knowledge and health behaviour change. This approach has the potential to be an important complement to medical management, self-management and education in patients with psoriasis.

ObjectivesThe way health literacy is understood (conceptualised) should be closely linked to how it is measured (operationalised). This study aimed to gain insights into how health literacy is defined and measured in current health literacy research and to examine the relationship between health literacy definitions and instruments.DesignSystematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Data sourcesThe MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published during two randomly selected months (March and October) in 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included articles with a quantitative design that measured health literacy, were peer-reviewed and original, were published in the English language and included a study population older than 16 years.Data extraction and synthesisSix researchers screened the articles for eligibility and extracted the data independently. All health literacy definitions and instruments were considered in relation to category 1 (describing basic reading and writing skills, disease-specific knowledge and practical skills) and category 2 (social health literacy competence and the ability to interpret and critically assess health information). The categories were inspired by Nutbeam’s descriptions of the different health literacy levels.Results120 articles were included in the review: 60 within public health and 60 within clinical health. The majority of the articles (n=77) used instruments from category 1. In total, 79 of the studies provided a health literacy definition; of these, 71 were in category 2 and 8 were in category 1. In almost half of the studies (n=38), health literacy was defined in a broad perspective (category 2) but measured with a more narrow focus (category 1).ConclusionDue to the high degree of inconsistency between health literacy definitions and instruments in current health literacy research, there is a risk of missing important information about health literacy considered be important to the initial understanding of the concept recognised in the studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020179699.

Knowledge of illness perception may aid the identification of groups of patients with a higher risk of coping poorly with the demands of their illness. This study aims to investigate associations between illness perception, clinical characteristics, patient knowledge, quality of life and subjective health in persons with psoriasis. The present study was based on cross-sectional data from patients awaiting climate therapy in Gran Canaria. We included 254 eligible patients (74%) who completed a questionnaire including the revised Illness Perception Questionnaire, the Psoriasis Knowledge Questionnaire, and the Dermatological Life Quality Index. Disease severity was measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. Several statistically significant associations between clinical characteristics, knowledge and various illness perception dimensions were found. Illness perception was also significantly related to disease-specific quality of life and subjective health. These findings contradict previous findings, which suggested that objective disease factors are not relevant to illness perception in psoriasis.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: This study aimed to undertake a rigorous psychometric evaluation of the nine-scale Norwegian version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) based on data from a sample of people with psoriasis. Methods: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from 825 adults with psoriasis who previously participated in the Norwegian Climate Heliotherapy programme. To investigate the factorial validity of the Norwegian HLQ, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using Stata. Results: A highly restricted model fit with no cross-loadings or correlated residuals was acceptable for three of the nine scales (‘Feeling understood and supported by health-care providers’, ‘Appraisal of health information’ and ‘Ability to find good health information’). After minor model adjustments of the other scales, one-factor models were acceptable. All scales showed acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.71 to 0.87. Except for three items, all items had high to acceptable factor loadings. Conclusions: This study of the Norwegian HLQ replicates the original factor structure of the Australian HLQ, indicating the questionnaire has cogent and independent scales with good reliability. Researchers, programme implementers and policymakers could use the Norwegian version of the HLQ with confidence to generate reliable information on health literacy for different purposes.