Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective. Well-being and quality of life can vary independently of disease. Instruments measuring well-being and quality of life are commonly used in neurology, but there has been little investigation into the extent in which they accurately measure wellbeing/quality of life or if they merely reflect a diseased state of an individual. Design. Systematic searches, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Individual items from instruments represented in ≥ 5 publications were categorised independently, without prior training, by five neurologists and one well-being researcher, as relating to ‘disease-effect’ or ‘Well-being’ with a study-created instrument. Items were additionally categorised into well-being domains. Data sources. MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycINFO from 1990 to 2020 were performed, across the 13 most prevalent neurological diseases. Results. 301 unique instruments were identified. Multiple sclerosis had most unique instruments at 92. SF-36 was used most, in 66 studies. 22 instruments appeared in ≥ 5 publications: 19/22 ‘well-being’ outcome instruments predominantly measured disease effect (Fleiss kappa = .60). Only 1/22 instruments was categorised unanimously as relating to well-being. Instruments predominantly measured mental, physical and activity domains, over social or spiritual. Conclusions. Most neurological well-being or quality-of-life instruments predominantly measure disease effect, rather than disease-independent well-being. Instruments differed widely in well-being domains examined.

Keywords

quality of life well-being instrument neurology

Most neurological well-being instruments measure disease-effect, rather than disease-independent well-being, and differ widely in well-being domains examined

Introduction

‘Human well-being is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue’,^1,2 stated Aristotle in the 4th century before the common era (BCE).³ Even today, the World Health Organization defines health as ‘A state of complete physical, mental and social-well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’.⁴ While the use of wellbeing scales in medical publications has burgeoned in recent decades, there is little consensus as to what they measure: scholarly discussion on the principles of instrument creation, related dimensions and guidance for use in clinical studies remains sparse. Despite the elegance of the WHO definition of ‘health’, the definition of ‘well-being’ is not agreed upon.^1,4 The underlying principles that guide well-being instrument development are often disparate in nature or differ by discipline. Terminology is employed interchangeably and confusingly across related topics with, for example, ‘well-being’, ‘quality of life’ (QOL), and ‘life satisfaction’ all being used, at times synonymously.

Disease-specific quality-of-life instruments may be insensitive to detect well-being improvement if the disease itself is unchanged by the intervention. With neurological diseases ranked globally as the leading cause of disability adjusted life years (DALYs),² an intervention that could shift a proportion of the patient population from significantly disease-impacted to flourishing in the presence of – or in spite of – the same degree of ongoing disease would be a major public health advance. Instruments examining well-being independent of the effects of disease are more likely to be sensitive in this context.

A study by Bassi et al (2014) was among the first to examine disease and well-being simultaneously in a cohort of people with MS (PwMS).⁵ Despite having high depression and lower quality-of-life scores on the Beck Depression Inventory and SF-36, their ratings on the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) – which is a disease-independent rating scale – paralleled those of caregivers and healthcare professionals.⁵ Having disease-impacted disability did not necessarily lead them to a decrease in perceived well-being. The ‘disability paradox’ described by Albrecht and Devlieger (1999) similarly reports high levels of well-being in individuals despite significant limitations in daily functions.⁶ Hence, disease and well-being are not merely differing ends of the same spectrum; they may co-exist and vary independently. For a given degree of disease, it is possible for patients to have vastly differing experiences of well-being. An item within a well-being instrument will typically relate to a specific ‘domain’ or ‘dimension’ of well-being. As defined by Linton et al (2016), domains can be split into mental, social, physical, spiritual, activities and functioning, and personal circumstances.¹ While Linton et al surveyed 99 self-reporting assessments to develop these domains, part of the exclusion criteria were instruments with a specific disease focus, as are common across neurological diseases (e.g. ‘QOL measurements in Epilepsy’ (QOLIE)). It is not clear, therefore, if the categories defined by Linton et al¹ are generalisable to disease-specific instruments.

Previous literature has rarely examined measurement of well-being in the context of disease: particularly whether specific items and overall instruments relate predominantly to well-being vs disease effect. An analysis of the most frequently used well-being measures specifically in neurology, and their domains of focus, has not been previously attempted. Understanding well-being domains would allow health professionals and researchers to choose an instrument to match their focus, the patient’s needs, or a particular study question.

Hypothesis

It is our hypothesis that the well-being and quality-of-life measures commonly employed within neurology are often disease-centric, and focus on the impact of disease, rather than on well-being, independent of disease.

Aims

The aims of the current review were to (1) identify instruments regarded as measuring well-being in neurological diseases, (2) identify if items in neurological instruments relate to disease effect or well-being, (3) describe aspects of an item that make it more likely to relate to disease effect or well-being, (4) describe the regularly sampled domains in the most common neurological instruments, and (5) describe the qualities that may be incorporated into an ideal instrument for measuring well-being in neurological disease. The wider objectives were to provide researchers and health professionals with a framework to identify an appropriate neurological well-being instrument for their needs, and to instruct development of future instruments in the measurement of well-being in the presence of disease.

Methods

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

The study protocol was agreed prospectively by collaboration of five authors (BZ, RC, WDS, AV and SM). Database searches included MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare and PsychINFO in line with PRISMA guidelines. Similar strategies were used for Embase, Emcare and PsychINFO. Additional searching was undertaken in 2020 using search engines, cross-checked with subject matter experts. All databases were searched with an identical timestamp criterion, with a starting year of 1990 to February 2020. This ensured old and new instruments were captured. Restrictions were set to English language only.

Pre-agreed inclusion criteria were established. Studies were included if they had an instrument that focused on the most prevalent and highest incidence neurological diseases as defined by the Global Burden of Disease.² These diseases included headache, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, brain and other central nervous system cancers, motor neuron disease (MND), traumatic brain injury, stroke, encephalitis, meningitis, spinal cord injury and tetanus. Studies with instruments focussing on quality of life, wellness, well-being, health-related quality of life and life satisfaction in the above neurological diseases were included.

Studies of paediatric and adolescent patients were excluded during the full-text screening stage. Conference abstracts without subsequent publication, letters, opinion papers, and animal studies were excluded.

Ethics Approval

Ethics approval was not required for this study design.

Screening

Search results were compiled using Endnote software. Duplicate references were automatically detected and then individually assessed with subsequent removal if deemed appropriate. One reviewer extracted the relevant instruments for consensus review: each study was screened based on title and abstract, and all full-text articles assessed for inclusion.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

An abstraction datasheet was created using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 365 Pro plus). Instrument characteristics (e.g. instrument name, disease type and authorship) were extracted from the eligible full-text publication.

Tool Creation

Input from neurologists within Australia and America was collaborated to agree prospectively upon 2 category definitions: ‘disease effect’ and ‘well-being’. Disease effect was defined as ‘relates to the disease progression, outcome and/or subsequent co morbidities. Can be in relation to the underlying disease, associated diseases, disease complications, or side effects of treatment’. Well-being was defined as ‘relates to the degree of well-being, not merely the absence of disease: in the spectrum of flourishing’. A third optional category ‘unequivocally well-being’ was used and defined as ‘item has no association with disease effect and excludes all criteria of ‘disease and its predictable associations’.

Domain categories and their subsequent definitions were adopted unchanged from Linton et al, who had described well-being domains across generic well-being instruments – excluding disease-specific instruments – and encouraged further research into instrument use in disease-specific contexts. Domain definitions from Linton et al were supplied unchanged to investigators and the items were categorised according to the definitions.

Instruments that appeared ≥ 5 times across all studies were analysed in this way – a frequency chosen in advance to reflect an established and validated instrument with peer-considered applicability – using the tool created through Microsoft Excel.

Instruments were obtained through online search strategies. Three instruments – EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS and SIP – were unable to be obtained and were therefore omitted. Further consultation with neurology sub-specialty experts was undertaken to ensure no commonly used instruments had been inadvertently missed and to reduce search bias: no additional instruments were identified. A total of 22 unique instruments emerged, and these were examined in detail. Items from all instruments were collated into Microsoft Excel, totalling 734 items. Each item on each instrument was compared with the category definitions by the 6 authors of the study, acting independently and blinded to results of the other authors. These 6–5 neurologists, one from America and 4 from Australia, and one well-being researcher – sorted each item into respective categories and one or more well-being domains.

All neurological diseases investigated – as defined by the Global Burden of Disease study – were represented in the analysis: one or more instruments that appeared in the top 5 most common instruments for that disease were included in the instrument tool for analysis.

Statistical Analysis

The qualitative analysis was undertaken using IBM SPSS Statistics (software for statistical analysis, version 26 [program]: IBM, Australia, 2019). The tool data was tabulated, and an inter-rater reliability was performed using Fleiss kappa for disease effect vs well-being effect. Mean averages were taken from domain results and then converted into ratios for analysis.

Results

Instrument Identification

The database search identified 1906 citations. With duplicates removed, there were a total of 1245 references. After title and abstract screening, 900 records were excluded, and the remaining 345 articles were assessed for eligibility with full-text review. Ultimately, 245 records were included in this review.^5,7-250 Reasons for exclusion defined prospectively were categorised as (1) non-neurological focused disease, (2) not well-being or similar related term, (3) conference abstract without publication, (4) language other than English, and (5) adolescent or paediatric population. Search strategy following PRISMA guidelines is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Search strategy with excluded studies and reasoning as per PRISMA guidelines.

Critical Appraisal

Instrument usage was clearly stated in all publications. Data collection was performed appropriately in 98% of publications.

Instruments Across Diseases

There was a total of 301 unique instruments found across all studies (Figure 2). 92 (30.5%) instruments were found for use in multiple sclerosis, 69 (23%) for spinal cord injury/traumatic brain injury, 64 (21.3%) for stroke, 36 (12%) for epilepsy, 31 (10.3%) for Parkinson’s disease, 28 (9.3%) for dementia/Alzheimer’s disease, 25 (8.3%) for headache/migraine, 16 (5%) for neoplasms, and 13 (4.3%) for MND (Figure 2). Encephalitis, meningitis and tetanus had no unique well-being instruments found.

Figure 2.

Total number of unique instruments per neurological disease.

Assays Across Studies

Studies often used more than one assay to measure well-being; the 301 unique assays obtained were used a total of 692 times across the studies in various combinations. The Short-Form 36 (SF-36) was much the most consistently used assay across 66 studies (Figure 3). The EuroQol five-dimensional scale (EQ-5D), Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3), and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) made up the next top 5 most frequent assays with 29, 24, 15, 13, 13 and 13 studies using these assays, respectively (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Quantity of assay use across all studies.

Instrument Focus Across Studies

There was a mixture of disease-specific and disease non-specific ‘generic’ instruments in the top 25 as given in Figure 4. Disease-specific instruments included spinal cord injury quality of life measurement system (SCI-QOL), stroke specific quality of life scale (SS-QoL), the quality of life in late-stage dementia (QUALID) scale, the quality of life scale in epilepsy 89 (QOLIE-89), quality of life after brain injury (QOLIBRI), Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD); Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), multiple sclerosis quality of life 54 (MSQOL-54), Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale 29 (MSIS-29), Leeds multiple sclerosis quality of life scale (LMS-QOL), Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6), functional assessment of cancer therapy – general (FACT-G), DEMQOL-Proxy, DEMQOL and the Alzheimer’s Disease-Related Quality of Life (ADRQL). Disease non-specific ‘generic’ instruments included Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D.

Figure 4.

Disease-specific instruments vs disease non-specific ‘generic’ instruments.

Well-Being vs Disease Effect

The mean percentage ratios of well-being vs disease-effect items as ascertained by application of the tool are given in Figure 5. Among the instruments used, only the SWLS was rated as measuring well-being effect unanimously across all items (k = 1). Conversely, the instruments MSIS-29, SS-QoL, HIT-6 and the PDQ-39 were rated with 100% disease effect measurement across all items. Of the remaining 17 instruments, the Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) and the Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life measurement system (SCI-QoL) measured > 50% well-being effect with a ratio of 74:26 and 61:39, respectively.

Figure 5.

Ratio of disease-effect vs well-being effect in the top 22 instruments by tool use.

There was a total of 14/22 instruments that were aligned to a specific disease. The disease aligned instruments demonstrated a trend towards examining disease effect. A total of 12 (85.7%) of the 14 disease-specific instruments trended towards disease-effect measures. Of the 8-disease non-specific ‘generic’ instruments, 7 (87.5%) trended towards measuring disease effect (Figure 5).

The average Fleiss inter-rater reliability kappa across all instruments was .6, demonstrating moderate agreement between investigators. The instruments that had well-being effect greater than 40%, QoL-AD, SCI QoL and WHOQOL-BREF, had low kappa values at .005, .28 and .266, respectively.

Instrument Domains

Instruments had a large variance in the domains they measured (Figure 6). Instruments that primarily measured ‘mental’ domains included DEMQOL (48.2%), QUALID (45.7%), LMS-QoL (40.7%), ADRQL (43.3%), HDI (41.3%), DEMQOL-PROXY (36.2%), FACT-G (32.7%), QOLIE-89 (33.9%), QOLIBRI (32.4%), SWLS (26.7%), QoL-AD (23.1%) and SCI-QoL (21.7%) (Figure 6). No instruments had ‘social’ as their primary domain; however, 24.9% of items in ADRQL had a social domain focus. Instruments that focused predominantly on ‘physical’ domains included EQ-5D (38.2%), HIT-6 (34.8%), MSQoL-54 (31.9%), MSIS-29 (35%), SF-36 (33.4%), NHP (33.4%) and PDQ-39 (32.5%) (Figure 6). No instruments had ‘spiritual’ as their primary domain; however, 13.3% of items in the SWLS had a spiritual domain focus. Instruments that focused on ‘activities and functioning’ as their primary domain included HUI3 (36.8%), SF-12 (32.8%), MIDAS (37%), SS-QoL (32.2%), MSQ (31.5%) and WHOQOL-BREF (21.7%) (Figure 6). No instruments had ‘personal circumstances’ as their primary domain; however, 18.8% of items in SCI-QoL had a personal circumstances focus.

Figure 6.

Proportion of domains per instrument from tool use.

Discussion

In a census of quality-of-life and wellbeing instruments used across the range of neurological diseases, most available instruments predominantly measure disease effect, rather than disease-independent well-being: we have demonstrated this through development of a tool that can be used to address this question reproducibly and with good inter-rater agreement. Concerningly, this focus on disease effect rather than disease-independent wellbeing includes many measures which have become the standard ‘quality of life’ or ‘well-being’ instruments used in several neurological diseases, for example, PDQ-39, QOLIE-39 and SF-36. In addition, the specific well-being domains examined varied widely across the available instruments. This study provides a snapshot of the currently used instruments and their focus, and will help guide instrument selection and further instrument development in measuring well-being in neurological disease.

For a given degree of disease, patient’s experiences can be vastly different. Disease and perceived well-being exist on differing spectra and can vary seemingly independently. Nevertheless, when we set out to measure well-being in the setting of neurological diseases, often the ‘quality of life’ or ‘well-being’ instruments used primarily assess the degree or impact of disease, rather than disease-independent well-being.

The consequences of this are several. Firstly, an intervention focussing on well-being – that is potentially disease-independent – is unlikely to be meaningfully measured on a disease-specific instrument: a different instrument should be selected to measure this. Measuring flourishing independent of neurological disease becomes particularly important in studying wellbeing where disease-modifying treatments are few, such as in ALS/MND or stroke. Secondly, the converse is also important: if we have an intervention that is disease-modifying, in addition to measuring the disease impact, we may also want to measure flourishing independently, and use 2 appropriate scales.

Disease-Effect vs Well-Being

We defined disease effect as ‘relates to the underlying disease, associated diseases, disease complications, or side effects of treatment’. This was inclusive of mental health and its associations, as mental health effects are a common complication of neurological diseases. We adopted the WHO approach to health to define well-being as ‘relates to the degree of well-being, not merely the absence of disease: in the spectrum of flourishing’.⁴

We obtained good agreement as to which items were related to disease, which to well-being. The points of difference are informative. There was unanimous consensus (k = 1) that MSIS-29, SS-QOL, HIT-6 and PDQ-39 all exclusively measured disease effect. All items included in PDQ-39 were preceded by the sentence: ‘Due to Parkinson’s disease, how often during the last month have you…’. This prefacing, and the inclusion of the disease name, was felt unanimously to place the focus on disease. HIT-6 adopts a similar approach and includes the word ‘headache’ in all their items, for example, ‘when you have headaches, how often is the pain severe?’ MSIS-29 and SS-QOL adopted similar approaches but used exclusively negative verbs in all items, for example, ‘how much have you been bothered by…?’, ‘I was irritable’ and ‘did you have trouble…’. The absence of a negative feature, not ‘bothered by’ or ‘having trouble with’, is neutrality, rather than the positive element of flourishing. This was a consistent theme throughout all disease-effect predominant instruments, where the absence of negative features (verbs) influenced investigators with aligning an item to disease effect over well-being effect. The SWLS was the only instrument to receive unanimous consensus (k = 1) in the exclusive measurement of well-being effect. The items used only positive language such as ‘ideal’, ‘excellent’ and ‘satisfied with life’. There was no negative language used, nor were the items associated with a specific disease. A scale was used for SWLS, and while the language used to frame the question included only positive terms, the option to mark the answer as significantly impacted was still present.

As the instruments became weighted towards well-being, the consensus among investigators decreased, SWLS excluded QoL-AD, SCI QoL and WHOQOL-BREF had significant disagreement. There were 3 themes that likely lead to this disagreement; firstly, the mixture of positive and negative language used in items significantly impacted investigators categorisation, for example, the combination of using both ‘satisfied and ‘worries’ caused significant disagreement in the item ‘how satisfied are you with the amount of worries in your life?’ from SCI-QOL. Secondly, items that omitted introspective thought – and had a purely physical focus – had significant disagreement. When an item related purely to actions, for example, ‘how do you feel about your ability to do things like chores around the house?’ (QoL-AD), the consensus was low. Finally, questions relating to areas such as ‘sleep’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘sexual function’ had significant disagreement, as to whether mainly impacted by disease or reflecting well-being.

Domains of Well-Being

We also examined these frequently used instruments as to the specific domains of well-being. We now have data, not previously available, that catalogues the priorities of the currently available instruments. We hope this may be relevant when selecting an instrument for wellbeing that is most appropriate. For example, whether the intervention is primarily disease-specific (such as an antidepressant) or potentially disease-independent (such as yoga or mindfulness), an instrument enriched for items in the ‘mental’ well-being domain would be ideal in this setting.

We adopted unchanged domain definitions in our tool that were reported in the Linton et al¹ paper on well-being instruments, extracted through their qualitative analysis of disease-independent well-being instruments. The application of items to domains in this way was relatively straightforward and supports Linton et al’s contention that the extracted domains should be applicable in the setting of disease-specific instruments.

The domain results revealed wide variance among instruments as to which domains were more prominent, reflecting that instrument choice should be tailored. Social, spiritual and personal circumstances currently have no focused instrument. Given these are typically introspective domains, and the majority of instruments measure disease-effect over well-being effect, it is not surprising that these are the least represented domains. This likely also reflects the process of disease-specific instrument design, which often begins with a list of disease symptoms and builds an instrument around these and may then neglect these more conceptual or emotional aspects of wellbeing.

Qualities of an Ideal Instrument

The process has also allowed us to describe and highlight the potential and pitfalls in ideal instrument development for assessing well-being in the presence of neurological disease. We used an optional third categorisation in the tool, ‘unequivocally well-being’ and defined this as ‘item has no association with a disease effect and excludes all criteria of “disease and its predictable associations”’. This aimed to give insight into how an ideal well-being item might be structured. Among the unanimously agreed ‘unequivocally well-being’ items, language played the greatest role. If a single negative verb was included in the item, it either had little consensus or was unanimously omitted from the ‘unequivocally well-being’ category.

Overall, in designing an instrument, question design depends on the aim of measurement: if aiming to measure flourishing, then the use of neutral or positive language, avoidance of negative language and the avoidance of disease terminology is important, given pooled experience with application of our review tool. Given our results, the ideal instrument would include (1) a stated aim of examining wellbeing independent of the presence of disease and clearly-voiced definitions; (2) the omission of disease-specific items from the instrument, which requires a reduction in disease to register as improved, and thus diluting the capacity of the instrument to measure disease-independent well-being; (3) the use of neutral or positive language, and avoidance of negative language; (4) the use of a response scale that extends to positivity rather than simply to neutral, to allow an individual to rate items as being impactful and burdensome through to flourishing and absent of negative aspects if required; (5) the use of appropriate vocabulary in items to elicit introspective thought from a patient, allowing assessment of more subjective elements of well-being; and (6) an understanding of what the patient values in order to cater items to specific domains of importance in their subjective assessment of well-being or quality of life, even in the presence of disease.

SF-36 was the most commonly used assay in this census, featuring more than twice as commonly as the next most frequent. This likely reflects its generic nature, and – in this review – possibility to be used across multiple neurological diseases rather than being restricted to single disease states like some other assays, for example, QOLIE, PDQ-39 or SCI-QOL. SF-36 assesses components of life that are almost universal, that is, ‘bathing or dressing yourself’ and ‘did you feel tired?’ However, it does not measure very well against many of our recommendations for an ideal scale. The SF-36 aims to assess ‘views about your health’, rather than wellbeing independent of disease. Negative language is used throughout – ‘does your health now limit you in’, ‘had difficulty in’ and ‘have you had any of the following problems with…’ – which suggests at best neutrality rather than extending into realms of positivity. Relatively few items allow the patient to assess their performance in domains of most importance to them, rather than those nominated by the instrument. Such factors likely explain the relatively poor assessment by our raters in measuring well-being. Whilst this study did not seek to explore why SF-36 is in such widespread use in neurology, it does highlight concerns that an assay that is commonly used and popularly understood to be measuring wellbeing across neurological disease is heavily skewed towards measuring disease effect.

SWLS was the only assay to unanimously measure well-being effect. We believe it aligns with all the above recommendations. In particular, with reference to our recommendations, the SWLS (1) states the intended purpose as being ‘designed to measure global cognitive judgement of one’s life satisfaction’; (2) does not include disease-specific items; (3) uses neutral or positive language – ‘satisfied’ and ‘the conditions of my life are excellent’ – and avoids negative terminology; (4) uses a scale of response extending into positivity ratings ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’ and ‘slightly agree’; (5) allows introspective subjective thought – ‘so far I have gotten the important things I want in life’; and (6) by being general in questioning, allows an individual to consider their most important domains and answer accordingly. Perhaps the shortcoming might be that – as such a brief scale – it does not allow the clinician an understanding of the particular areas of importance to the patient or, particularly if poorly rated, any understanding of specific concerns of the patient that might be improved. Thus, SWLS gives an excellent assessment of global wellbeing, and could potentially be improved by extension to yield more detailed information around which domains the patient holds as important, and how these are rated.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study Design

This was the first study to analyse neurology-specific QOL and wellbeing disease instruments and their subsequent items. This study also included disease non-specific instruments in an attempt to capture how well-being is currently measured within neurological diseases. The number of reviewers was high, at 6, with moderate agreement achieved between all assessors (k = .6). Criteria for analysis were defined by consensus and prospectively, rigorously and transparently, to allow for future replication.

There were several limitations to the study. A self-designed tool was used to measure well-being vs disease effect. Three instruments were excluded from analysis in the tool: EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS and SIP. Significant attempts were made to find these 3 instruments, without success: this seems unlikely to bias the outcome, and rather argues that these instruments are not in common usage and therefore not entirely relevant to the study outcome. Sorting an item from an instrument into disease effect vs well-being effect required a background knowledge of the disease condition, in order to determine if the downstream consequences of that disease might relate to the disease itself, or stand alone in the measurement of well-being. While 5 of the 6 investigators were neurologists with significant background knowledge on all conditions, one was not. This, however, did not skew the agreement consensus. Whilst this study did not investigate assays used in other fields of medicine, we suspect findings may be similar. It is likely that the generic – disease non-specific – assays would be assessed identically: this would be a rich topic for further research.

Conclusion

Many ‘wellbeing’ or ‘quality of life’ instruments are employed across the breadth of neurological diseases. Most neurological well-being instruments measure disease-effect, rather than disease-independent well-being, and differ widely in well-being domains examined. This recognition is of particular importance in gauging contribution of interventions that may improve perceived wellbeing in spite of minimal or no disease impact. Attention to overall measurement aims and specific domains of interest should guide instrument selection/development in measuring well-being in neurological disease.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Benjamin Ziegeler

References

Linton

M-J

Dieppe

Medina-Lara

. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010641.

GDB 2016 Neurology Collaborators . Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(5):459-480.

Aristotle, Reeve CDC . Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated; 2014.

World Health Organization . Division of Mental H, Prevention of Substance A. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1997.

Bassi

Falautano

Cilia

, et al. The coexistence of well- and ill-being in persons with multiple sclerosis, their caregivers and health professionals. J Neurol Sci. 2014;337(1-2):67-73.

Albrecht

Devlieger

. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(8):977-988.

Ahmed

Mayo

Corbiere

Wood-Dauphinee

Hanley

Cohen

. Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: true change or response shift? Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):611-627.

Aiyappan

Catcheside

Grivell

, et al. Quality of life assessments in motor neurone disease patients on non-invasive ventilation using disease specific and treatment specific tools. J Sleep Res. 2017;26(suppl 1):63.

Alt Murphy

Persson

Danielsson

Broeren

Lundgren-Nilsson

Sunnerhagen

. SALGOT - Stroke arm longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg, prospective cohort study protocol. BMC Neurol. 2011;11:56.

10.

Ambrosio

Portillo

Rodriguez-Blazquez

, et al. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SLS-6): first validation study in Parkinson’s disease population. Park Relat Disord. 2016;25:52-57.

11.

Andrees

Westenhöfer

Blome

Heesen

Augustin

Topp

. Towards patients’ understanding of health-related quality of life-a mixed-method study in psoriasis and multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(10):2717-2729.

12.

Antonaci

Sances

Guaschino

De Cillis

Bono

Nappi

. Meeting patient expectations in migraine treatment: what are the key endpoints? J Headache Pain. 2008;9(4):207-213.

13.

Ardolino

Sleat

Willett

. Outcome measurements in major trauma-results of a consensus meeting. Injury. 2012;43(10):1662-1666.

14.

Armstrong

Gilbert

. Patient reported endpoints for measuring clinical benefit in (high grade glioma) primary brain tumor patients. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2014;15(4):519-528.

15.

Arons

AMM

Schölzel-Dorenbos

CJM

Olde Rikkert

MGM

Krabbe

PFM

. A Simple and practical index to measure dementia-related quality of life. Value Health. 2016;19(1):60-65.

16.

Aujla

Walker

Vedhara

Sprigg

. The relationship between patients’ illness beliefs and recovery after stroke. Psychol Health Med. 2019;24(5):551-558.

17.

Ayer

Skljarevski

Ford

Nyhuis

Lipton

Aurora

. Measures of functioning in patients with episodic migraine: findings from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial with galcanezumab. Headache. 2018;58(8):1225-1235.

18.

Baca

Vickrey

Vassar

Berg

. Disease-targeted versus generic measurement of health-related quality of life in epilepsy. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1379-1387.

19.

Balioussis

Hitzig

Flett

Noreau

Craven

. Identifying and classifying quality of life tools for assessing spasticity after spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2014;20(3):208-224.

20.

Banks

Martin

. The factor structure of the SF-36 in Parkinson’s disease. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(3):460-463.

21.

Barclay-Goddard

Lix

Tate

Weinberg

Mayo

. Health-related quality of life after stroke: does response shift occur in self-perceived physical function? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(11):1762-1769.

22.

Barth

Thomé

Schmiedek

Weiss

Kasuya

Vajkoczy

. Characterization of functional outcome and quality of life following subarachnoid hemorrhage in patients treated with and without nicardipine prolonged-release implants. J Neurosurg. 2009;110(5):955-960.

23.

Becker

. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with migraine. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences\. 2002;29(suppl 2):S16-S22.

24.

Bertisch

Kalpakjian

Kisala

Tulsky

. Measuring positive affect and well-being after spinal cord injury: development and psychometric characteristics of the SCI-QOL positive affect and well-being bank and short form. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38(3):356-365.

25.

Bezner

Hunter

. Wellness perception in persons with traumatic brain injury and its relation to functional independence. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2001;82(6):787-792.

26.

Bjorner

Kosinski

Ware

Jr . Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(8):981-1002.

27.

Bjorner

Kosinski

Ware

Jr . Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Qual Life Res. 2003;12(8):913-933.

28.

Bode

Lai

J-S

Cella

Heinemann

. Issues in the development of an item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(4 suppl 2):S52-S60.

29.

Bowling

Rowe

Adams

, et al. Quality of life in dementia: a systematically conducted narrative review of dementia-specific measurement scales. Aging Ment Health. 2015;19(1):13-31.

30.

Brunet

Hopman

Singer

Edgar

MacKenzie

. Measurement of health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Can J Neurol Sci. 1996;23(2):99-103.

31.

Bryan

Hardyman

Bentham

Buckley

Laight

. Proxy completion of EQ-5D in patients with dementia. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):107-118.

32.

Buck

Jacoby

Massey

Ford

. Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 2000;31(8):2004-2010.

33.

Bullinger

Petersen

Von Steinbuchel

. Cross-cultural development of health-related quality of life measures after traumatic brain injury. Acta Neuropsychologica. 2005;3(1-2)-249.

34.

Caël

Decavel

Binquet

, et al. Stroke impact scale version 2: validation of the French version. Phys Ther. 2015;95(5):778-790.

35.

Cano-de-la-Cuerda

Vela-Desojo

Miangolarra-Page

Macías-Macías

Muñoz-Hellín

. Axial rigidity and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a preliminary study. Quality of Life Research. 2011;20(6):817-823.

36.

Cantor

Ashman

Gordon

, et al. Fatigue after traumatic brain injury and its impact on participation and quality of life. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2008;23(1):41-51.

37.

Carlozzi

Tulsky

Kisala

. Traumatic brain injury patient-reported outcome measure: identification of health-related quality-of-life issues relevant to individuals with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10 suppl l):S52-S60.

38.

Carlozzi

Tyner

Kisala

, et al. Measuring self-reported cognitive function following TBI: development of the TBI-QOL executive function and cognition-general concerns item banks. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2019;34(5):308-325.

39.

Carod-Artal

Coral

Trizotto

Moreira

. The stroke impact scale 3.0. Stroke. 2008;39(9):2477-2484.

40.

Cella

Nowinski

Peterman

, et al. The neurology quality-of-life measurement initiative. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10 suppl l):S28-S36.

41.

Cella

Nowinski

. Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2002;83(12 suppl 2):S10-S17.

42.

Chang

F-H

Chen

C-Y

Liang

W-M

Lin

M-R

. Validating the quality of life after brain injury through Rasch analysis. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017;32(4):E11-E18.

43.

Chang

Sohn

Lee

, et al. Predictors of functional level and quality of life at 6 months after a first-ever stroke: the KOSCO study. J Neurol. 2016;263(6):1166-1177.

44.

Chen

Lin

. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a short version of the stroke-specific quality of life scale in patients receiving rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(8):629-636.

45.

Chiu

C-Y

Motl

Ditchman

. Validation of the social provisions scale in people with multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. 2016;61(3):297-307.

46.

Chua

K-C

Böhnke

Prince

Banerjee

. Health-related quality-of-life assessment in dementia: evidence of cross-cultural validity in Latin America. Psychol Assess. 2019;31(10):1264-1277.

47.

Cohen

Pouwer

Pfennings

, et al. Factor structure of the disability and impact profile in patients with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(1-2):141-150.

48.

Cole

Lin

Rupnow

MFT

. Validation of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v. 2.1) for patients undergoing prophylactic migraine treatment. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(7):1231-1237.

49.

Conde-Sala

Reñé-Ramírez

Turró-Garriga

, et al. Clinical differences in patients with alzheimer’s disease according to the presence or absence of anosognosia: implications for perceived quality of life. J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;33(4):1105-1116.

50.

D’Alisa

Miscio

Baudo

Simone

Tesio

Mauro

. Depression is the main determinant of quality of life in multiple sclerosis: a classification-regression (CART) study. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2006;28(5):307-314.

51.

Damiano

McGrath

Willian

, et al. Evaluation of a measurement strategy for Parkinson’s disease: assessing patient health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research. 2000;9(1):87-100.

52.

de Boer

AGEM

Spruijt

Sprangers

MAG

de Haes

JCJM

. Disease-specific quality of life: is it one construct? Quality of Life Research. 1998;7(2):135-142.

53.

de Boer

Hamers

JPH

Beerens

Zwakhalen

SMG

Tan

FES

Verbeek

. Living at the farm, innovative nursing home care for people with dementia - study protocol of an observational longitudinal study. BMC Geriatrics. 2015;15:144.

54.

Dean

Poltawski

Forster

, et al. Community-based Rehabilitation Training after stroke: protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain). BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e012375.

55.

Demers

Monette

Lapierre

Arnold

Wolfson

. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec user Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability Rehabilitation. 2002;24(1-3):21-30.

56.

Deuschl

Follett

Luo

, et al. Comparing two randomized deep brain stimulation trials for Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosurg. 2019;132(5):1-9.

57.

Devy

Lehert

Varlan

Genty

Edan

. A short and validated multiple sclerosis-specific health-related quality of life measurement for routine medical practice. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20(6):935-941.

58.

Diaz-Redondo

Rodriguez-Blazquez

Ayala

Martinez-Martin

Forjaz

. EQ-5D rated by proxy in institutionalized older adults with dementia: psychometric pros and cons. Geriatrics & Gerontology International. 2014;14(2):346-353.

59.

Dichter

Meyer

. Quality of life of people with dementia in nursing homes. In: Dementia in Nursing Homes. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017:139-157.

60.

Dichter

Schwab

CGG

Meyer

Bartholomeyczik

Dortmann

Halek

. Measuring the quality of life in mild to very severe dementia: testing the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the German version of the QUALIDEM. International Psychogeriatrics. 2014;26(5):825-836.

61.

Dijkers

. Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: a review of research approaches and findings. Arch Physic Med Rehabil. 2004;85(suppl 2):S21-S35.

62.

Dijkers

. Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualization, measurement, and research findings. J Rehabil Res Develop. 2005;42(3 suppl 1):87-110.

63.

Diniz

da Silva

Nóbrega

. Quality of life and swallowing questionnaire for individuals with Parkinson’s disease: development and validation. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(4):864-874.

64.

DiRisio

Harary

Van Westrhenen

, et al. Quality of reporting and assessment of patient-reported health-related quality of life in patients with brain metastases: a systematic review. Neurooncol Pract. 2018;5(4):214-222.

65.

Dorman

Dennis

Sandercock

. Are the modified “simple questions” a valid and reliable measure of health related quality of life after stroke? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;69(4):487-493.

66.

Dorman

Waddell

Slattery

Dennis

Sandercock

. Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke. 1997;28(10):1876-1882.

67.

Easton

Milte

Crotty

Ratcliffe

. An empirical comparison of the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U for older people in residential care. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1283-1294.

68.

Ebrahimzadeh

Makhmalbaf

Soltani-Moghaddas

Mazloumi

. The spinal cord injury quality-of-life-23 questionnaire, Iranian validation study. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19(4):349-354.

69.

Efstratiadou

Chelas

Ignatiou

Christaki

Papathanasiou

Hilari

. Quality of life after stroke: evaluation of the Greek SAQOL-39g. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2012;64(4):179-186.

70.

Engel

Bryan

Evers

SMAA

Dirksen

Noonan

Whitehurst

DGT

. Exploring psychometric properties of the SF-6D, a preference-based health-related quality of life measure, in the context of spinal cord injury. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2383-2393.

71.

Engel

Bryan

Noonan

Whitehurst

DGT

. Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability wellbeing and subjective wellbeing: an application in the context of spinal cord injury. Social Sci Med. 2018;213:154-164.

72.

Epton

Harris

Jenkinson

. Quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease: a structured review. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 2009;10(1):15-26.

73.

Escoffery

Bamps

LaFrance

Jr , et al. Factor analyses of an Adult Epilepsy Self-Management Measurement Instrument (AESMMI). Epilepsy Behav. 2015;50:184-189.

74.

Farrar

. Measuring symptoms and wellness in the multiple sclerosis patient: issues in measurement. Expert Rev Neurotherap. 2013;13(12 suppl l):21-26.

75.

Fitzpatrick

Norquist

Jenkinson

. Distribution-based criteria for change in health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(1):40-44.

76.

Fleming

Cook

Nelson

Lai

. Proxy reports in Parkinson’s disease: caregiver and patient self-reports of quality of life and physical activity. Mov Disord. 2005;20(11):1462-1468.

77.

Foley

Brandes

. Redefining functionality and treatment efficacy in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2009;72(23 suppl 5):S1-S11.

78.

Ford

Gerry

Tennant

Whalley

Haigh

Johnson

. Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clinic Rehabil. 2001;15(3):247-258.

79.

Fox

Laws

Jr Anderson

Jr Farace

. Complementary therapy use and quality of life in persons with high-grade gliomas. J Neurosci Nurs. 2006;38(4):212-220.

80.

Freeman

Hobart

Thompson

. Does adding MS-specific items to a generic measure (the SF-36) improve measurement? Neurology. 2001;57(1):68-74.

81.

Galeoto

Colalelli

Massai

, et al. Quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: Italian validation of the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39-IT). Neurol Sci. 2018;39(11):1903-1909.

82.

Gershon

Lai

Bode

, et al. Neuro-QOL: quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(3):475-486.

83.

Geyh

Fellinghauer

Kirchberger

Post

. Cross-cultural validity of four quality of life scales in persons with spinal cord injury. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:94.

84.

Geyh

Kunz

Müller

Peter

Swi

SCISG

. Describing functioning and health after spinal cord injury in the light of psychological-personal factors. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48(2):219-234.

85.

Gilliam

Kuzniecky

Faught

Black

Carpenter

Schrodt

. Patient-validated content of epilepsy-specific quality-of-life measurement. Epilepsia. 1997;38(2):233-236.

86.

Giustini

Longo

Azicnuda

, et al. Health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury: Italian validation of the QOLIBRI. Funct Neurol. 2014;29(3):167-176.

87.

Gold

Schulz

Mönch

Schulz

K-H

Heesen

. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis does not affect reliability and validity of self-report health measures. Mult Scler J. 2003;9(4):404-410.

88.

Gray

McNamara

Aziz

, et al. Quality of life outcomes following surgical treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2002;17(1):68-75.

89.

Groeneveld

Goossens

van Braak

, et al. Patients’ outcome expectations and their fulfilment in multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019;62(1):21-27.

90.

Grootendorst

Feeny

Furlong

. Health utilities index mark 3. Med Care. 2000;38(3):290-299.

91.

Gruenewald

Higginson

Vivat

Edmonds

Burman

. Quality of life measures for the palliative care of people severely affected by multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler. 2004;10(6):690-725.

92.

Haagsma

Scholten

Andriessen

TMJC

Vos

Van Beeck

Polinder

. Impact of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder on functional outcome and health-related quality of life of patients with mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32(11):853-862.

93.

Hagell

Crabb

Pogarell

, et al. Health-related quality of life following bilateral intrastriatal transplantation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2000;15(2):224-229.

94.

Hagell

Nygren

. The 39 item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) revisited: implications for evidence based medicine. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(11):1191-1198.

95.

Hagell

Reimer

Nyberg

. Whose quality of life? Ethical implications in patient-reported health outcome measurement. Value Health. 2009;12(4):613-617.

96.

Hagell

Whalley

McKenna

Lindvall

. Health status measurement in Parkinson’s disease: validity of the PDQ-39 and Nottingham health profile. Mov Disord. 2003;18(7):773-783.

97.

Hareendran

Skalicky

Mannix

, et al. Development of a new tool for evaluating the benefit of preventive treatments for migraine on functional outcomes - the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ). Headache. 2018;58(10):1612-1628.

98.

Heimans

Taphoorn

MJB

. Impact of brain tumour treatment on quality of life. Journal of Neurology. 2002;249(8):955-960.

99.

Hendriks

AAJ

Smith

Black

. DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy: a Rasch analysis among those diagnosed with dementia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):161.

100.

Hendriks

AAJ

Smith

Chrysanthaki

Cano

Black

. DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy: a Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):164.

101.

Hepworth

Rowe

Burnside

. Development of a patient reported outcome measures for measuring the impact of visual impairment following stroke. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):348.

102.

Hill

Noonan

Sakakibara

Miller

. Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(6):438-450.

103.

Hitzig

Noreau

Balioussis

Routhier

Kairy

Craven

. The development of the spinal cord injury participation and quality of life (PAR-QoL) tool-kit. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(16):1408-1414.

104.

Hjelle

Bragstad

Zucknick

Kirkevold

Thommessen

Sveen

. The General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) as an outcome measurement in a randomized controlled trial in a Norwegian stroke population. BMC Psychol. 2019;7(1):18.

105.

Hobart

Williams

Moran

Thompson

. Quality of life measurement after stroke. Stroke. 2002;33(5):1348-1356.

106.

Hopman

Coo

Edgar

McBride

Day

Brunet

. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Can J Neurol Sci. 2007;34(2):160-166.

107.

Jenkinson

Fitzpatrick

Peto

. Health-related quality-of-life measurement in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(2):157-165.

108.

Jiang

J-L

S-F

Tsai

S-T

Chen

S-Y

. A systematic review of the impact of subthalamic nucleus stimulation on the quality of life of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tzu Chi Med J. 2014;26(1):15-20.

109.

Johnston

Diab

Kim

S-S

Kirshblum

. Health literacy, morbidity, and quality of life among individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2005;28(3):230-240.

110.

Johnston

Goverover

Dijkers

. Community activities and individuals’ satisfaction with them: quality of life in the first year after traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005;86(4):735-745.

111.

Kalpakjian

Tate

Kisala

Tulsky

. Measuring self-esteem after spinal cord injury: development, validation and psychometric characteristics of the SCI-QOL Self-esteem item bank and short form. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38(3):377-385.

112.

Kasper

Black

Shore

Rabins

. Evaluation of the validity and reliability of the alzheimer disease-related quality of life assessment instrument. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2009;23(3):275-284.

113.

Katona

Schmidt

Schupp

Graessel

. Predictors of health-related quality of life in stroke patients after neurological inpatient rehabilitation: a prospective study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:58.

114.

Khalaf

. Evaluation of the measurement properties of the Short Form 36 version 2 health survey in a sample of patients with multiple sclerosis. Dissert Abstracts Int Sec Sci Eng. 2017;77(10-B(E)):1-337.

115.

Leidy

Rentz

Grace

. Evaluating health-related quality of life outcomes in clinical trials of antiepileptic drug therapy. Epilepsia. 1998;39(9):965-977.

116.

Kobau

Cui

Kadima

, et al. Tracking psychosocial health in adults with epilepsy-estimates from the 2010 national health interview survey. Epilepsy Behav. 2014;41:66-73.

117.

Kogos

Jr Richards

Banos

, et al. Visceral pain and life quality in persons with spinal cordinjury: a brief report. J Spinal Cord Med. 2005;28(4):333-337.

118.

Kohn

Sidovar

Kaur

Zhu

Coleman

. Estimating a minimal clinically important difference for the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status index in persons with multiple sclerosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:66.

119.

Kranciukaite

Rastenyte

. Measurement of quality of life in stroke patients. Medicina. 2006;42(9):709-716.

120.

Krause

. Dimensions of subjective well-being after spinal cord injury: an empirical analysis by gender and race/ethnicity. Arc Physic Med Rehabil. 1998;79(8):900-909.

121.

Krikmann

Taba

Lai

Asser

. Validation of an estonian version of the Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39). Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2008;6:23.

122.

Lacey

Bobula

Rüdell

Alvir

Leibman

. Quality of life and utility measurement in a large clinical trial sample of patients with mild to moderate alzheimer’s disease: determinants and level of changes observed. Value Health. 2015;18(5):638-645.

123.

Laosanguanek

Wiroteurairuang

Siritho

Prayoonwiwat

. Reliability of the Thai version of SF-36 questionnaire for an evaluation of quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients in multiple sclerosis clinic at Siriraj Hospital. J Med Associat Thailand. 2011;94(suppl 1):S84-S88.

124.

Learmonth

Hubbard

McAuley

Motl

. Psychometric properties of quality of life and health-related quality of life assessments in people with multiple sclerosis. Quality Life Research. 2014;23(7):2015-2023.

125.

Lipton

Tepper

Reuter

, et al. Erenumab in chronic migraine: patient-reported outcomes in a randomized double-blind study. Neurology. 2019;92(19):E2250-E2260.

126.

López-Liria

Vega-Ramírez

Rocamora-Pérez

Aguilar-Parra

Padilla-Góngora

. Comparison of two post-stroke rehabilitation programs: a follow-up study among primary versus specialized health care. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166242.

127.

Lunardi

Costa

Guerreiro

Souza

. Quality of life in pregnant women with epilepsy versus women with epilepsy. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2011;69(2 B):336-341.

128.

Lusic

Dzamonja

Titlic

, et al. Psychometric validation of the croatian version of the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31). Coll Antropol. 2011;35(4):1177-1184.

129.

MacKenzie

Chang

. Predictors of quality of life following stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(5):259-265.

130.

Maniu

Neamtu

. Quality of life measurement instruments for headache and migraine disorders. Applied Med Informat. 2019;41:24.

131.

Marrie

Cutter

Tyry

. Substantial burden of dizziness in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2013;2(1):21-28.

132.

Martínez-Martín

. An introduction to the concept of “quality of life in Parkinson’s disease”. J Neurol. 1998;245(suppl 1):S2-S6.

133.

Martinez-Martin

. What is quality of life and how do we measure it? Relevance to Parkinson’s disease and movement disorders. Mov Disord. 2017;32(3):382-392.

134.

May

. Measurement and prediction of quality of life of persons with spinal cord injury. Diss Abstr Int. 2000;61(3-B):1367.

135.

May

Warren

. Measuring quality of life of persons with spinal cord injury: external and structural validity. Spinal Cord. 2002;40(7):341-350.

136.

McAuliffe

Baylor

Yorkston

. Variables associated with communicative participation in Parkinson’s disease and its relationship to measures of health-related quality-of-life. Int J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2017;19(4):407-417.

137.

McGlone

Valdivia

Penner

Williams

Sadler

Clarke

. Quality of life and memory after vagus nerve stimulator implantation for epilepsy. Canad J Neurol Sci/. 2008;35(3):287-296.

138.

Merchant

Hope

. The quality of life in alzheimer’s disease scale: direct assessment of people with cognitive impairment. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(6B):105-110.

139.

Meyers

Gage

Hendricks

. Health-related quality of life in neurology. Arch Neurol. 2000;57(8):1224-1227.

140.

Michel

Baumstarck

Auquier

, et al. Development of a multidimensional computerized adaptive test for measuring quality of life for patients with multiple sclerosis: the MuSiQoL-MCAT. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(1 suppl 1):35-38.

141.

Michel

Baumstarck

Ghattas

, et al. A multidimensional computerized adaptive short-form quality of life questionnaire developed and validated for multiple sclerosis. Medicine. 2016;95(14):e3068.

142.

Mitera

Zeiadin

Sahgal

Finkelstein

Chow

Loblaw

. Quality of life measures used in radiation therapy trials for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC): a literature review. J Pain Manag. 2010;3(1):31-38.

143.

Choi

BCK

FCK

Merrick

. Using health utility index (HUI) for measuring the impact on health-related quality of Life (HRQL) among individuals with chronic diseases. Scientif World J. 2004;4:746-757.

144.

Morgen

Engelholm

Larsen

Søgaard

Dahl

. Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. Orthop Surg. 2016;8(3):309-315.

145.

Mougias

Politis

Lyketsos

Mavreas

. Quality of life in dementia patients in Athens, Greece: predictive factors and the role of caregiver-related factors. Int Psychogeriatr. 2011;23(3):395-403.

146.

Moyle

McAllister

Venturato

Adams

. Quality of life and dementia. Dementia. 2007;6(2):175-191.

147.

Moyle

Murfield

. Health-related quality of life in older people with severe dementia: challenges for measurement and management. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2013;13(1):109-122.

148.

Mulhern

Smith

Rowen

, et al. Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis. Value Health. 2012;15(2):323-333.

149.

Alt Murphy

Persson

Danielsson

Broeren

Lundgren-Nilsson

Sunnerhagen

. SALGOT--stroke arm longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg, prospective cohort study protocol. BMC Neurology. 2011;11:56.

150.

Murphy

Confavreux

Haas

, et al. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat. 1998;65(4):460-466.

151.

Naglie

Tomlinson

Tansey

, et al. Utility-based quality of life measures in alzheimer’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(4):631-643.

152.

Nelles

Contois

Valente

, et al. Recovery following lateral medullary infarction. Neurology. 1998;50(5):1418-1422.

153.

Nichol

Higgins

Gabbe

Murray

Cooper

Cameron

. Measuring functional and quality of life outcomes following major head injury: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42(3):281-287.

154.

Nicholl

Hobart

Cramp

Lowe-Strong

. Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis: not as simple as it sounds. Mult Scler J. 2005;11(6):708-712.

155.

Nobels-Janssen

van der Wees

Verhagen

WIM

Westert

Bartels

RHMA

Boogaarts

. Patient-reported outcome measures in subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurology. 2019;92(23):1096-1112.

156.

Novik

Ionova

Bisaga

Kishtovich

Fedorenko

Ivanov

, et al. Clinical and quality of life responses to high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis: two case reports. Cytotherapy. 2005;7(4):363-367.

157.

Nowinski

Siderowf

Simuni

Wortman

Moy

Cella

. Neuro-QoL health-related quality of life measurement system: validation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2016;31(5):725-733.

158.

Okonkwo

Roth

Pulley

Howard

. Confirmatory factor analysis of the validity of the SF-12 for persons with and without a history of stroke. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(9):1323-1331.

159.

Opara

Brola

Leonardi

Błaszczyk

. Quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. J Med Life. 2012;5(4):375-381.

160.

Oppelt

Hähnlein

Boschert

, et al. Influence of demographic factors and clinical status parameters on long-term neurological, psychological and vegetative outcome following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2018;32(12):1500-1509.

161.

Osterhaus

Gandek

Ware

. Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache. Headache. 1994;34(6):337-343.

162.

Ozakbas

Cagiran

Ormeci

Idiman

. Correlations between multiple sclerosis functional composite, expanded disability status scale and health-related quality of life during and after treatment of relapses in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2004;218(1-2):3-7.

163.

Pålhagen

Dizdar

Hauge

, et al. Interim analysis of long-term intraduodenal levodopa infusion in advanced Parkinson disease. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;126(6):e29-e33.

164.

Parikh

Parekh

Vaghela

. Impact of stroke on quality of life and functional independence. Nat J Physiol Pharmacy Pharmacol. 2018;8(12):1595-1598.

165.

Parkin

Jacoby

McNamee

Miller

Thomas

Bates

. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon beta: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68(2):144-149.

166.

Pathak

Chisolm

Weis

. Functional assessment in migraine (FAIM) questionnaire: development of an instrument based upon the WHO’s international classification of functioning, disability, and health. Value Health. 2005;8(5):591-600.

167.

Patrick

Martin

Bushmell

Pesa

. Measuring satisfaction with migraine treatment: expectations, importance, outcomes, and global ratings. Clin Ther. 2003;25(11):2920-2935.

168.

Pedersen

Heiberg

Nielsen

, et al. Validity, reliability and Norwegian adaptation of the stroke-specific quality of life (SS-QOL) scale. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6:2050312117752031.

169.

Pereira-Neto

Borba

Mello

PAd

Naves

Araújo

ASd

Jr Casulari

. Mean intrasellar pressure, visual field, headache intensity and quality of life of patients with pituitary adenoma. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2010;68(3):350-354.

170.

Pittock

Mayr

McClelland

, et al. Quality of life is favorable for most Patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 2004;61(5):679-686.

171.

Polinder

Haagsma

van Klaveren

Steyerberg

van Beeck

. Health-related quality of life after TBI: a systematic review of study design, instruments, measurement properties, and outcome. Popul Health Metrics. 2015;13(1):4.

172.

Porzsolt

Kojer

Schmidl

, et al. A new instrument to describe indicators of well-being in old-old patients with severe dementia--the Vienna List. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:10.

173.

Post

. Measuring the subjective appraisal of participation with life satisfaction measures: Bridging the gap between participation and quality of life measurement. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2010;15(4):1-15.

174.

Post

MVM

Van Dijk

Van Asbeck

FWA

Schrijvers

AJP

. Life satisfaction of persons with spinal cord injury compared to a population group. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1998;30(1):23-30.

175.

Postma

Post

MWM

Haisma

Stam

Bergen

Bussmann

JBJ

. Impaired respiratory function and associations with health-related quality of life in people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(10):866-871.

176.

Pozzilli

Schweikert

Ecari

Oentrich

Bugge

J-P

. Quality of life and depression in multiple sclerosis patients: longitudinal results of the BetaPlus study. J Neurol. 2012;259(11):2319-2328.

177.

Prlic

Kadojic

. Quality of life in post-stroke patients: self-evaluation of physical and mental health during six months. Acta Clin. 2012;51(4):601-608.

178.

Prlic

Kadojic

Gmajnic

Prlic

. Quality of life of patients after stroke in county Osijek-Baranya. Coll Antropol. 2010;34(4):1379-1390.

179.

Qiyaam

Adikusuma

Nopitasari

Andayani

Amini

. Effectiveness of gabapentin usage toward reducing pain intensity level and quality of life of post-stroke neuropathic patients in regional general hospital, west nusa tenggara province year 2018. Asian J Pharmaceut Clinic Res. 2019;12(3):560-562.

180.

Quinn

Bhargava

Al-Tamimi

Clark

Ross

Tennant

. Self-perceived health status following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e003932.

181.

Raggi

Covelli

Guastafierro

, et al. Validation of a self-reported instrument to assess work-related difficulties in patients with migraine: the HEADWORK questionnaire. J Headache Pain. 2018;19(1):85.

182.

Raggi

Tasca

Lupica Capra

PMD

Panerai

Neri

Ferri

. Health-related quality of life in community dwelling patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Eur Geriatric Med. 2017;8(2):158-163.

183.

Ray

Das

Gangopadhya

Roy

. Quality of life in Parkinson’s disease--Indian scenario. J Assoc Physic India. 2006;54:17-21.

184.

Ready

Ott

Grace

Fernandez

. The Cornell-Brown scale for quality of life in dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2002;16(2):109-115.

185.

Rendas-Baum

Bloudek

Maglinte

Varon

. The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients. Quality Life Res. 2013;22(5):1123-1133.

186.

Rendas-Baum

Yang

Varon

Bloudek

DeGryse

Kosinski

. Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) in patients with chronic migraine. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:117.

187.

Riazi

Hobart

Lamping

Fitzpatrick

Thompson

. Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler J. 2003;9(4):411-419.

188.

Rimmele

Lebherz

Frese

, et al. Outcome evaluation by patient reported outcome measures in stroke clinical practice (EPOS) protocol for a prospective observation and implementation study. Neurologic Res Practice. 2019;1(1):28.

189.

Ritchie

Wright-St Clair

Keogh

Gray

. Community integration after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the clinical implications of measurement and service provision for older adults. Arch Physic Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):163-174.

190.

Rodriguez-Blazquez

Forjaz

Frades-Payo

de Pedro-Cuesta

Martinez-Martin

. Independent validation of the scales for outcomes in Parkinson’s disease-autonomic (SCOPA-AUT). Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(2):194-201.

191.

Rogers

Orav

Black

. The use of a simple likert scale to measure quality of life in brain tumor patients. J Neurooncol. 2001;55(2):121-131.

192.

Romero

Flood

Gasiewicz

Rovin

Conklin

. Validation of the national institutes of health patient-reported outcomes measurement information system survey as a quality-of-life instrument for patients with malignant brain tumors and their caregivers. Nurs Clinic North America. 2015;50(4):679-690.

193.

Ronald

Lao

Popovic

, et al. Comparison of the eortc QLQ-BN20 and the fact-BR quality of life questionnaires for patients with primary brain tumors: a literature review. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(1):S191.

194.

Rosengren

Jonasson

Brogårdh

Lexell

. Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale in Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. 2015;132(3):164-170.

195.

Rudick

Miller

. Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2008;22(10):827-839.

196.

Saarni

Härkänen

Sintonen

, et al. The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: a general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(8):1403-1414.

197.

Samsiah

Das

Chee

, et al. The ideal measurement of the quality of life in post stroke patients: an urban study. Clin Ter. 2011;162(3):209-215.

198.

Sarabia-Cobo

Parás-Bravo

Amo-Setién

, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the ICECAP-O for nursing home residents with dementia. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169354.

199.

Schneider

. Assessing outcomes in alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2001;15(suppl 1):S8-S18.

200.

Schölzel-Dorenbos

CJM

Arons

AMM

Wammes

JJG

Rikkert

Krabbe

PFM

. Validation study of the prototype of a disease-specific index measure for health-related quality of life in dementia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:118.

201.

Schougaard

LMV

de Thurah

Bech

Hjollund

Christiansen

. Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 Well-being Index in outpatients with epilepsy. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):175.

202.

Schwartz

Snook

Quaranto

Benedict

Vollmer

. Cognitive reserve and patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013;19(1):87-105.

203.

Sheehan

Lall

Stinton

, et al. Patient and proxy measurement of quality of life among general hospital in-patients with dementia. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16(5):603-607.

204.

Silva

Corrêa

Faria

CDCdM

Pereira

Attié

EAdA

Corrêa

JCF

. Reproducibility of the items on the stroke specific quality of life questionnaire that evaluate the participation component of the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(24):2413-2418.

205.

Smit

de Lange

Willemse

Twisk

Pot

. Activity involvement and quality of life of people at different stages of dementia in long term care facilities. Aging Ment Health. 2016;20(1):100-109.

206.

Smith

Baker

Jacoby

Chadwick

. The contribution of the measurement of seizure severity to quality of life research. Qual Life Res. 1995;4(2):143-158.

207.

Smith

Hendriks

Regan

Black

. A novel method of proxy reporting questionnaire based measures of health-related quality of life of people with dementia in residential care: a psychometric evaluation. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018;9:221-230.

208.

Smith

Lamping

Banerjee

, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(10):1-iv.

209.

Soberg

Roe

Brunborg

von Steinbüchel

Andelic

. The Norwegian version of the QOLIBRI - a study of metric properties based on a 12 month follow-up of persons with traumatic brain injury. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):14.

210.

Solomon

. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with headache. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;6(1):34-41.

211.

Solomon

. Evolution of the measurement of quality of life in migraine. Neurology. 1997;48(suppl 3):S10-S15.

212.

Solomon

Skobieranda

Genzen

. Quality of life assessment among migraine patients treated with sumatriptan. Headache J Head Face Pain. 1995;35(8):449-454.

213.

Solomon

Skobieranda

Gragg

. Quality of life and well-being of headache patients: measurement by the medical outcomes study instrument. Headache. 1993;33(7):351-358.

214.

Solomon

Skobieranda

Gragg

. Does quality of life differ among headache diagnoses? Analysis using the medical outcomes study instrument. Headache. 1994;34(3):143-147.

215.

Sopina

Chenoweth

Luckett

, et al. Health-related quality of life in people with advanced dementia: a comparison of EQ-5D-5L and QUALID instruments. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(1):121-129.

216.

Stewart

Fernandez

Okun

Jacobson

Hass

. Distribution of motor impairment influences quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2008;23(10):1466-1468.

217.

Struttmann

Fabro

Romieu

, et al. Quality-of-life assessment in the old using the WHOQOL 100: differences between patients with senile dementia and patients with cancer. Int Psychogeriatr. 1999;11(3):273-279.

218.

Tang

Chen

, et al. Cerebral microbleeds and quality of life in acute ischemic stroke. Neurol Sci. 2011;32(3):449-454.

219.

Tate

Kalpakjian

Forchheimer

. Quality of life issues in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arc Physic Med Rehabil. 2002;83(12 suppl 2):S18-S25.

220.

Topp

Andrees

Heesen

Augustin

Blome

. Recall of health-related quality of life: how does memory affect the SF-6D in patients with psoriasis or multiple sclerosis? A prospective observational study in Germany. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032859.

221.

Torenbeek

Caulfield

Garrett

Van Harten

. Current use of outcome measures for stroke and low back pain rehabilitation in five European countries: first results of the ACROSS project. Int J Rehabil Res. 2001;24(2):95-101.

222.

Toyinbo

Vanderploeg

Donnell

, et al. Development and initial validation of military deployment-related TBI quality-of-life item banks. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016;31(1):52-61.

223.

Hwang

Hsu

. Responsiveness of the short-form health survey and the Parkinson’s disease questionnaire in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:75.

224.

Tulsky

Kisala

. The spinal cord injury - quality of life (SCI-QOL) measurement system: development, psychometrics, and item bank calibration. J Spin Cord Med. 2015;38(3):251-256.

225.

Tulsky

Kisala

Kalpakjian

, et al. Measuring depression after spinal cord injury: development and psychometric characteristics of the SCI-QOL depression item bank and linkage with PHQ-9. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38(3):335-346.

226.

Tulsky

Kisala

Victorson

, et al. TBI-QOL. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016;31(1):40-51.

227.

Tulsky

Kisala

Victorson

, et al. Methodology for the development and calibration of the SCI-QOL item banks. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38(3):270-287.

228.

Tulsky

Kisala

Victorson

, et al. Developing a contemporary patient-reported outcomes measure for spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10 suppl l):S44-S51.

229.

Tulsky

Kisala

Victorson

, et al. Overview of the spinal cord injury - quality of life (SCI-QOL) measurement system. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38(3):257-269.

230.

Turner-Bowker

Saris-Baglama

DeRosa

Paulsen

. Cognitive testing and readability of an item bank for measuring the impact of headache on health-related quality of life. Patient. 2012;5(2):89-99.

231.

Unalan

Soyuer

Ozturk

. Should the nottingham health profile or the short form-36 be given preference in stroke? Neurosciences. 2009;14(1):45-52.

232.

van Baalen

Odding

van Woensel

van Kessel

Roebroeck

Stam

. Reliability and sensitivity to change of measurement instruments used in a traumatic brain injury population. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(8):686-700.

233.

van Straten

de Haan

Limburg

Schuling

Bossuyt

van den Bos

GAM

. A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the sickness impact profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke. 1997;28(11):2155-2161.

234.

Victorson

Tulsky

Kisala

Kalpakjian

Weiland

Choi

. Measuring resilience after spinal cord injury: development, validation and psychometric characteristics of the SCI-QOL Resilience item bank and short form. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38(3):366-376.

235.

von Steinbuechel

Petersen

Bullinger

. Assessment of health-related quality of life in persons after traumatic brain injury - development of the Qolibri, a specific measure. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2005;93:43-49.

236.

Wagner

Keller

Kosinski

, et al. Advances in methods for assessing the impact of epilepsy and antiepileptic drug therapy on patients’ health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1995;4(2):115-134.

237.

Walker

Salek

Bayer

. A review of quality of life in alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14(5):499-530.

238.

Wang

Han

, et al. Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift in quality of life in patients with alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr. 2019;31(1):123-132.

239.

Webster

Cella

Yost

. The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:79.

240.

Weitzenkamp

Gerhart

Charlifue

Whiteneck

Glass

Kennedy

. Ranking the criteria for assessing quality of life after disability: evidence for priority shifting among long-term spinal cord injury survivors. Br J Health Psychol. 2000;5(1):57-69.

241.

Whitehurst

DGT

Noonan

Dvorak

MFS

Bryan

. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord. 2012;50(9):646-654.

242.

Whitehurst

Suryaprakash

Engel

, et al. Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: a qualitative exploration. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:50.

243.

Wiebe

Eliasziw

Matijevic

. Changes in quality of life in epilepsy: how large must they be to be real? Epilepsia. 2001;42(1):113-118.

244.

Wijnen

BFM

Schat

de Kinderen

RJA

Colon

Ossenblok

PPW

Evers

SMAA

. Burden of disease of people with epilepsy during an optimized diagnostic trajectory: costs and quality of life. Epilepsy Res. 2018;146:87-93.

245.

Wong

Hird

Kirou-Mauro

Napolskikh

Chow

. Quality of life in brain metastases radiation trials: a literature review. Current Oncol. 2008;15(5):25-45.

246.

Wood-Dauphinée

Exner

Bostanci

, et al. Quality of life in patients with spinal cord injury--basic issues, assessment, and recommendations. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2002;20(3-4):135-149.

247.

Yang

Selassie

Carter

Tilley

. Measuring QoL with SF-36 in older Americans with TBI. Appl Res Qual Life. 2012;7(1):63-81.

248.

Yang

Dawes

Leroi

Gannon

. Measurement tools of resource use and quality of life in clinical trials for dementia or cognitive impairment interventions: a systematically conducted narrative review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(2):e166-e176.

249.

Young

Ealing

McDermott

, et al. The relationships between symptoms, disability, perceived health and quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2019;20(5-6):317-327.

250.

Zikos

Coens

Bean

Ediebah

Bottomley

. Measuring the quality of life of patients with cancer. Eur Oncol Haematol. 2014;10(1):10-11.

Neurological Health: Not Merely the Absence of Disease: Current Wellbeing Instruments Across the Spectrum of Neurology

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Hypothesis

Aims

Methods

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

Ethics Approval

Screening

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Tool Creation

Statistical Analysis

Results

Instrument Identification

Critical Appraisal

Instruments Across Diseases

Assays Across Studies

Instrument Focus Across Studies

Well-Being vs Disease Effect

Instrument Domains

Discussion

Disease-Effect vs Well-Being

Domains of Well-Being

Qualities of an Ideal Instrument

Strengths and Limitations of the Study Design

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References