TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantitative measurement of quality of life in adult patients undergoing bone marrow transplant or peripheral blood stem cell transplant
T2 - a decade in review.
AU - Hacker, Eileen Danaher
PY - 2003/7
Y1 - 2003/7
N2 - PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate a decade of quantitative quality-of-life (QOL) measurement in adult patients undergoing bone marrow transplant (BMT) or peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT). DATA SOURCES: Quantitative research articles published between January 1990 and January 2000 in the nursing and medical literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: QOL measures reported in BMT and PBSCT literature support the multidimensional nature of the construct. The majority of studies used a single instrument to assess QOL. Variations in measurement included use of a single versus multiple instruments to assess QOL, theoretical underpinnings of instruments, and output (overall score, domain scores) provided by the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: A study's purpose, conceptual approach, patient burden, and resources available to the researcher should guide decisions regarding QOL instrumentation. No gold standard exists for assessing QOL in research or clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses can select from a variety of tools to measure QOL in the BMT and PBSCT patient populations. Clinicians must consider the clinical meaningfulness of changes in QOL before implementing changes in their practice.
AB - PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate a decade of quantitative quality-of-life (QOL) measurement in adult patients undergoing bone marrow transplant (BMT) or peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT). DATA SOURCES: Quantitative research articles published between January 1990 and January 2000 in the nursing and medical literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: QOL measures reported in BMT and PBSCT literature support the multidimensional nature of the construct. The majority of studies used a single instrument to assess QOL. Variations in measurement included use of a single versus multiple instruments to assess QOL, theoretical underpinnings of instruments, and output (overall score, domain scores) provided by the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: A study's purpose, conceptual approach, patient burden, and resources available to the researcher should guide decisions regarding QOL instrumentation. No gold standard exists for assessing QOL in research or clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses can select from a variety of tools to measure QOL in the BMT and PBSCT patient populations. Clinicians must consider the clinical meaningfulness of changes in QOL before implementing changes in their practice.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042744054&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042744054&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
C2 - 12861322
AN - SCOPUS:0042744054
SN - 1538-0688
VL - 30
SP - 613
EP - 629
JO - Oncology nursing forum
JF - Oncology nursing forum
IS - 4
ER -