Background
Methods
Procedure
Quality assessment
Eligibility criteria and operationalization of concepts
Data extraction and analysis
Results
Description of studies included
Study characteristics | Patient characteristics | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author (date) | Country of research | Sample size n (male n) |
Design
|
Age in years
| Time since onset (O)/ Time since diagnosis (D) | ALSFRS | Diagnostic criteria | Onset bulbar (%) |
Bremer (2004)T0 [16] | U.S.A | 49 (29) | Longitudinal | 57.8 (13.0) | 34.9 (13.2) moO
| 27.9 (6.3) | El Escorial | n.m |
Chio (2004) [13] | Italy | 80 (49) | Cross sectional | 59.8 (12.6; 26–81) | 2.1 (1.7; 1–7.8) yrO
| 26.6 (9.5; 3–38) | El Escorial | n.m. |
Clarke (2001) [15] | Ireland | 26 (18) | Cross sectional | 63M (34–86) | 31.5 (4–156)M moD
| 22.5M (11–36) | El Escorial | n.m |
Dal Bello-Haas (2000) [47] | U.S.A | 60 (38) | Cross sectional | 56.2 (12.2) | n.m | n.m | El Escorial | n.m. |
Ganzini (1999) [45] | U.S.A. | 100 (61) | Cross sectional | 54M (51.6–56.8) | 2.8 (2.0–3.6)M yrD
| n.m | n.m | n.m |
Gibbons (2013) [37] | U.K. | 147 (90) | Cross sectional | 61 (11; 35–81) | n.m | 22.3 (9.5; 4–48) |
‘confirmed diagnosis’
| n.m |
Goldstein (2002) [38] | U.K | 31 (19) | Cross sectional | 64.0 (11.9) | 15.9 (5.2) moD
| n.m | El Escorial | n.m |
Ilse (2015) [10] | Germany | 49 (25) | Cross sectional | 63.8 (10.0) | 35.1 (36.3) moO
| 32.6 (9.2) R
| El Escorial | 33 % |
Krampe (2008)T0 [27] | Germany | 31 (19) | Longitudinal | 60.3 (10.4; 32.9–79.7) | 96.3 (70.5; 22.4–330.4) wkO
| 27.0 (6.6; 12–38) | El Escorial | 19 % |
Lule (2008)T0 [28] | Germany | 39 (19) | Longitudinal | n.m | 43.9 (37.5; 0–170) moD
| 19.9 (21.1; 0–39) | El Escorial | n.m |
Matuz (2010) [36] | Germany | 27 (15) | Cross sectional | 55.3 (11.1; 35–73) | 36 (4–129) moD
| 17.4 (9.8; 0–36) |
‘by a neurologist’
| 7 % |
Matuz T0 (2015) [30] | Germany | 27 (15) | Longitudinal | 55.3 (11.1; 35–73) | 43.2 (30.5; 4–129) moD
| 17.4 (9.8; 0–36) | El Escorial | 7 % |
McCabe (2009) [19] | Spain | 120 (72) | Cross sectional | 63.2 (12.4) | 5.7 (5.8)O yr | n.m | n.m | n.m |
Montel (2012) [46] | France | 49 (26) | Cross sectional | 63 (12) | 45 (28) moO
| 28.2 (9.0)R
| El Escorial | 22 % |
Pagnini T0 (2015) [29] | Italy USA | 197 (115) | Longitudinal |
a
|
a
| 30.6(9.9)SA
| ‘self-declared’ | n.m |
Peric (2010) [40] | Serbia | 74 (45) | Cross sectional | 57 (11) | 29 (27) moO
| 34 (8)R
| El Escorial | n.m. |
Pizzimenti (2013) [43] | Italy | 36 (22) | Cross sectional | 63.7 (10.9) | 22 (14) moO
| 35.1 (8.7) | El Escorial | 22 % |
Robbins (2001)T0 [31] | U.S.A | 60 (32) | Longitudinal | 58.5 (13.5; 27–83) | n.m | 28.1 (6.3; 12–39) | El Escorial | n.m |
Simmons (2000) [14] | U.S.A | 96 (52) | Cross sectional | 57.8 (23–80) | 31.8 (2 mo-10 year) moO
| 26.6 (9–39) |
‘met the criteria’
| n.m |
Tramonti (2012) [42] | Italy | 40 (30) | Cross sectional | 59.1 (10.9; 34–84) | n.m | 20.8 (8.3; 7–36) | n.m | n.m |
Vignola (2008)TD [41] | Italy | 29 (20) | Cross sectional | 63.6 (7.8; 44–78) | 11.7 (23.7; 2–43) moO
| 33.1 (4.8; 22–39) | El Escorial | n.m |
Winter (2010) [44] | Germany | 37 (21) | Cross sectional | 59.6 (11.0) | 2.3 (1.9) yrO
| n.m | El Escorial | n.m |
Psychological factors | Measurement and references | Number of items | Description | Scoring system | Generic/ALS-specific measure | References in this review |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anxiety | Hamilton rating scale for anxiety (HAM-A) Hamilton (1959) [63] | 14 | To assess the severity of symptoms of anxiety. Each of the items contains a number of symptoms, and each group of symptoms is rated on a scale. | 5-point scale. Total scores for anxiety range from 0 to 56. Score interpretation: <17: mild severity 18–24: mild to moderate severity 25–30: moderate to severe | Generic | [40] |
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale anxiety (HADS-a) Zigmond (1983) [54] | 7 | To assess psychological distress in medically ill patients. The instrument concentrates on the psychic rather than the somatic symptoms of mood disorder in order to provide an assessment of mood independent of levels of physical disability in patients with medical illnesses. | 4-point scale. Total scores for anxiety range from 0 to 21 Score interpretation: ≤7: non-cases 8–10: possible clinical levels of distress 11–21: clinical levels of distress | Generic | ||
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale anxiety (HADS-a)—modified version 1
Gibbons (2011) [56] | 6 | To assess psychological distress in medically ill patients. The original HADS was modified with removal of question 11 of the original HADS “I feel restless as if I have to be on the move”. | 4-point scale. Total scores for anxiety range from 0 to 18. Score interpretation: Scores of 9–18: case level anxiety | ALS | [37] | |
State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) Spielberger (1968) [64] | 40 | To assess trait and state anxiety. STAIs: 20 items assess trait anxiety. STAIs is defined as an unpleasant emotional arousal in face of threatening demands or dangers; STAIt: 20 items assess state anxiety. STAIt reflects the existence of stable individual differences in the tendency to respond with state anxiety in the anticipation of treating situations. These two parts differ in the item wording, in the response format (intensity versus frequency), and in the instructions given for responses. | 4-point scale. Total scores for anxiety (STAIs and STAIt) range from 20 to 80. Score interpretation: 20–39: low anxiety 40–59: medium anxiety 60–80: high anxiety | Generic | [41] | |
Depression | Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Beck (1961) [53] | 21 | To assess severity of depressive symptoms. | 4-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 0 to 63. Score interpretation: 0–9: no depressive symptoms 10–18: mild to moderate depressive symptoms 19–29: moderate to severe depression 30–63: severe depression | Generic | |
Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAM-D) Hamilton (1960) [63] | 21 | To assess patient’s level of depression. The first 17 of the 21 items contribute to the total score and items 18–21 give additional information, not part of the scale, such as paranoia and diurnal variation | 8 items 5-point scale; 9 items 3-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 0 to 50. Score interpretation: 0–7 = normal 8–13 = mild depression 14–18 = moderate depression 19–22 = severe depression 23–50 = very severe depression | Generic | [40] | |
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale depression (HADS-d) Zigmond (1983) [65] | 7 | To assess psychological distress in medically ill patients. The instrument concentrates on the psychic rather than the somatic symptoms of mood disorder in order to provide an assessment of mood independent of levels of physical disability in patients with medical illnesses. | 4-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 0 to 21. Score interpretation: ≤7: non-cases 8–10: possible clinical levels of distress 11–21: clinical levels of distress | Generic | [15] | |
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale depression (HADS-d) - modified version 2
Abrahams (1997) [66] | 6 | To assess psychological distress in medically ill patients. The original HADS was modified with removal of question 8: “I feel slowed down”, as it was felt likely that this would falsely exaggerate the measure of depression due to the physical symptoms of ALS. | 4-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 0 to 18. Score interpretation: ≤7: non-cases 8–10: possible clinical levels of distress 11–21: clinical levels of distress | ALS | [38] | |
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale depression (HADS-d) - modified version 1
Gibbons (2011) [56] | 6 | To assess psychological distress in medically ill patients. The original HADS was modified with removal of question 8: “I feel slowed down”. | 4-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 0 to 16 (Two items in the depression subscale were recorded 0-1-1–2). Score interpretation: Scores of 8–16: case level depression. | ALS | [37] | |
Depressive disorders: DSM-IV. American Psychiatric Association (2000) [67] | 9 | To assess a major depressive disorder. | Score interpretation: 5 out of 9 symptoms have to be present and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure. | Generic | [45] | |
ALS-Depression-Inventory (ADI-12) Kubler (2005) [34] | 12 | To assess depressive symptoms, specifically developed for ALS patients and addresses depressive symptoms excluding increasing physical impairments commensurate with ALS. | 4-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 12 to 48. Score interpretation: <22: absence of depression 22–28: mild depression >28: clinically relevant depression | ALS | [28] | |
Zung Depression Scale (ZDS); Zung (1965) [68] also called Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) (1965) | 20 | To assess depression | 4-point scale. Total scores for depression range from 20 to 80 Score interpretation: 50–59: mild depression 60–69: moderate depression 70–80: severe depression | Generic | ||
Mood | Profile of Mood State short-form (POMS-SF) McNair (1992) [69] | 37 | To assess six states of mood: tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigour-activity, fatigue-inertia, and confusion-bewilderment. | Abbreviated 37-item version of the original scale using the 5-point Likert Scale; 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Total mood disturbance (TMD): sum of the subscales. Score interpretation: Higher scores reflect higher presence of the mood state. | Generic | [19] |
Religiosity | Idler Index of Religiosity (IRR) Idler (1987) [70] | 4 | To assess the level of religiosity. It addresses both public and private aspects of religiosity: Public religiosity (IIR-Pu) (2 items): frequency of church attendance and number of church members known personally Private religiosity (IIR-Pr) (2 items) how religious they perceived themselves to be and the amount of strength and comfort obtained from religious practices. | Public religiousness: 1-item, 6-point scale; 1-item, 4-point scale Private religiousness: 1-item, 4- point scale; 1-item, 3-point scale The religiosity scores are summed to produce public, private, and total religiosity; scores range from 2–10, 2–7 and 4–17, respectively. Score interpretation: Higher scores indicate higher level of religiosity. | Generic | |
Spirituality | Spiritual Well-being Scale (SWBS) (1) Reed (1987) [71] | 10 | To assess the level of spiritual well-being. | 6-point scale. Total scores of spiritual well-being range from 6 to 36. Score interpretation: Higher scores indicate higher spiritual well-being. | Generic | [16] |
Spiritual Well-being Scale (SWBS) (2) Ellison (1983) [72] | 20 | The scale consists of 10 religious well-being items (RWB) and 10 existential well-being items (EWB); spiritual well-being. | 6-point scale. Total scores (RWB + EWB) of spiritual well-being range from 20 to 120. Score interpretation: Higher scores indicate higher spiritual well-being. | Generic | [47] | |
Mindfulness | Langer mindfulness scale (LMS) Pirson (2012) [73] | 14 | Three domains associated with mindful thinking: novelty seeking, engagement and novelty producing. | Total scores range from 14–98, Score interpretation: Higher scores reflect higher mindfulness | Generic | [29] |
Hopelessness | Becks Hopelessness Scale (BHS) Beck (1974) [74] | 20 | To assess three major aspects of hopelessness: feelings about the future, loss of motivation, and expectations. | 2-point scale. Total scores of hopelessness range from 0 to 20. 8–13: moderate hopelessness >14: severe hopelessness Score interpretation: Higher scores reflect higher levels of hopelessness. | Generic | [45] |
Perception of burden to others | Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI) – revised
Zarit (1980) [75] | 3 | Three items of the original ZBI were revised to measure patient beliefs that their medical condition stressed, burdened, or caused financial hardship to their family. | 5-point scale. Total score of perception of burden to others (1 item) range from 0 to 4. Score interpretation: Higher score indicates higher perception of burden to their family. | ALS | [45] |
Cognitive appraisal | Appraisal scale Smith (1993) [76] | 4 | To assess patients’ primary (motivational relevance, motivational congruence) and secondary appraisal (problem-focused and emotion-focused coping potential) | 9-point scale. Scores per item range from 1 to 9. Total scores are not mentioned. Score interpretation: The larger the difference between the two items of primary appraisal (motivational relevance and motivational congruence), the more patients feel threatened by the disease. | Generic | |
Coping | Motor Neuron Disease Coping Scale (MNDCS) – adapted version 1
Lee (2001) [35] | 18 | To assess extent to which patients relied on the coping strategies. 18 questions of the original 22-item scale were assigned to 6 subscales. | 6-point scale. Total score for each type of coping was obtained by generating the mean score of the grouped scales. Ranges of total scores are not mentioned. Score interpretation: Higher score reflects greater use of the coping strategy. | ALS | |
Motor Neuron Disease Coping Scale (MNDCS/Cope-MND)—adapted version 2
Lee (2001) [35] | 9 | To assess extent to which patients relied on the coping strategies. The original MNDCS was reduced to a 9-item scale. | 6-point scale. Ranges of total scores are not mentioned. Score interpretation: Higher scores reflect greater use of the coping strategy. | ALS | [37] | |
The Brief COPE Carver (1997) [77] | 28 | Measures 14 dimensions of coping: distraction; active coping; denial; emotional support; instrumental support; disengagement; venting; positive reframing; planning; acceptance; humour; religion; self-blame; substance use. Each dimension consists of 2 items. | 4-point scale. No overall score. Score range per dimension ranges from 2 to 8, per item from 1 to 4. Score interpretation: Higher score reflects greater use of the coping strategy. | Generic | [46] | |
Personality traits | NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Costa (1992) [78] | 60 | To assess the five dimensions of personality, postulated by the five-factor model of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. | 5-point scale. Each of the five-factor subscales consists of 12 items, resulting in mean factor scores ranging from 0 to 4. Score interpretation: Higher score reflects a type of personality. | Generic | [27] |
Global QoL Measurement and reference | Number of items | Description | References in this review |
---|---|---|---|
The Schedule for the Evaluation of Quality of Life (SEIQoL) McGee (1991) [79] O’Boyle (1992) [80] | 46 | SEIQoL assesses overall subjective QoL as judged by the patient in healthy or ill individuals. It is derived from a decision analysis technique known as judgement analysis, administered through a semi-structured interview. Patients rate their satisfaction with areas of their life by assessing three aspects of QoL. The patients have to 1) nominate the life areas (cues) which are important to their QoL; 2) rate their current level of functioning in each of these salient areas; and 3) rate the relative importance of each of their chosen cues. SEIQoL index score: the SEIQoL scores are entirely person-specific, for the purpose of group analyses an overall global or index QoL score (also referred to as a total QoL score) is calculated. The resulting SEIQoL index ranges from 0 (worst possible QoL) to 100 (best possible QoL). | |
The Schedule for the evaluation of Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) Hickey (1996) [81] | 15 | SEIQoL-DW is a shorter, direct-weight (DW) version of the SEIQoL, employs an alternative method of deriving cue weights using a colored disk. SEIQoL-DW index score: The SEIQoL-DW scores are entirely person-specific; for the purpose of group analyses an overall global or index QoL score (also referred to as a total QoL score) is calculated. The resulting SEIQoL index ranges from 0 (worst possible QoL) to 100 (best possible QoL). | |
The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) | 17 | MQOL assesses overall subjective QoL as judged by the patient. Subjects evaluate their lives over the past 2 days on five subscales using a 10-point semantic-differential format. Originally designed for cancer and HIV patients. It is not heavily weighted toward physical function and it includes an existential element. MQOL includes five domains, two of which are health-related: Physical Symptoms (MQOL-Ph) (3 items) and Physical Well-being (MQOL-PW) (1 item); and three are non-health related: Psychological symptoms (MQOL-Ps) (4 item); Existential Well-being (MQOL-EW) (6 items) and Social Support (MQOL-Su) (2 items). Scores on the subscales range from 0 (worst) to 10 (best). The MQOL total score is the mean of the 5 subscales, score ranges from 0 (worst QoL) to 10 (best QoL). MQOL-SIS: besides the subscales there is also a Single-Item Score (SIS): the patient is asked to indicate his/her self-perceived overall QoL in the past two days in a single-item scale (SIS) measuring overall subjective QoL, rated from 0 (very bad) to 10 (excellent). | |
QoL-single-item question Self-developed by Ganzini (1999) [45] | 1 | A single-item question to assess patients self-perceived overall QoL. End-points labelled 1 = “my quality of life is as good as it can be” and 6 = “my quality of life is very bad, horrible”. | [45] |
QoL-single-item question Self-developed by Krampe (2008) [27] | 1 | A single-item question to assess patients self-perceived overall QoL. “Over the past seven days, the quality of my life has been”: very poor (0) – excellent (10). | [27] |
Health-related QoL Measurement and reference | Number of items | Description | References in this review |
---|---|---|---|
The 36-items Short Form of the Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire (SF-36) Ware (1993) [52] | 36 | SF-36 is a standardised, generic health-related quality of life measure. It consists of 36 items covering 8 dimensions. Each dimension is transformed into a 0–100 scale on the assumption that each question carries equal weight. High scores indicate good QoL. Four of these dimensions (limitations in physical functioning (PF); role limitations due to physical health problems (RP), bodily pain (BP), and general health perceptions (GH)) are summarized in the Physical Component Score (PCS), and four others (vitality (VT); social functioning (SF), role limitations due to emotional problems (ER), general mental health (MH)), in the Mental Component Score (MCS). | |
Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) Bergner (1981) [84] | 136 | SIP measures physical, mental and social aspects of health-related functioning; it contains statements regarding behaviour “sickness impact” and the individual is asked to respond by checking items that describe their health status. SIP contains 136 items in 12 categories and two dimensions (physical and psychosocial). Overall, category and dimension scores may be calculated from 0—100 (best). | [47] |
Sickness Impact Profile (SIP/ALS-19) McQuire (1997) [39] | 19 | SIP/ALS-19 assess health-related QoL. It is a questionnaire consisting of 19 items from the full SIP (Sickness Impact Profile) believed to have the greatest impact on QoL, based on opinions of ALS clinical specialists. Extracted from the full SIP total score range from 0—100 (best). | |
EuroQoL-5D Brazier (1993) [85] | 5 | EuroQoL-5D assess health-related QoL. It consists of five questions that relate to five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care. usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension is divided into three levels of severity (1, no problem; 3 severe problem). The EQ-5D-index score can be calculated. | |
EQ VAS Konig (2005) [86] | 1 | EQ VAS assess health-related QoL. It is a visual analogue scale (VAS thermometer type) to rate patients current HRQoL ranging from 0 (worse imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state). | [44] |
World Health Organization Quality of Life brief questionnaire (WHOQoL-BREF) Skevington (2004) [87] | 26 | WHOQoL-BREF assesses quality of life within the context of an individual’s culture, value systems, personal goals, standards and concerns. Generic instrument, measures QoL of life across 4 domains: physical health (7 items), psychological health (6 items), social relationships (3 items) and environment (8 items). Domain scores can be transformed to total scores from 0 (worse imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state). Two other items measure overall QoL and general health. Items are rated on a 5-point scale (low score of 1 to high score of 5) to determine a raw item score. Subsequently, the mean score for each domain is calculated, resulting in a mean score per domain that is between 4 and 20. Finally, this mean domain score is then multiplied by 4 in order to transform the domain score into a scaled score, with a higher score indicating a higher QoL. | |
Quality of Life Index (QL-Index) Spitzer 1981 [88] | 5 | The Spitzer Qol Index (SQLI/ QLI/ QL-Index) assesses health-related QoL in palliative care populations. It covers five dimensions of quality of life: activity, daily living, health, support of family and friends, and outlook on life. Each dimension is rated on a three-point Likert scale (0 to 2), with the range of scores from 0 to 10. Lower scores reflect a higher QoL. | [43] |
Reference | Year | Internal validity | Control of drop out | External validity | Statistical validity | Proportion Sample size vs determinants | Multi-collinearity | Confounding bias | Reporting | Total (max 8 points) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bremer [16] | 2004 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.0 |
Chio [13] | 2004 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
Clarke [15] | 2001 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.0 |
Dal-Bello-Haas [47] | 2000 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.5 |
Ganzini [45] | 1999 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
Gibbons [37] | 2013 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7.0 |
Goldstein [38] | 2002 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 |
Ilse [10] | 2015 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.0 |
Krampe [27] | 2008 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.0 |
Lule [28] | 2008 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 |
Matuz [36] | 2010 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
Matuz [30] | 2015 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
McCabe [19] | 2009 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
Montel [46] | 2012 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.0 |
Pagnini [29] | 2015 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.5 |
Peric [40] | 2010 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.5 |
Pizzimenti [43] | 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8.0 |
Robbins [31] | 2001 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
Simmons [14] | 2000 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.5 |
Tramtoni [42] | 2012 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 |
Vignola [41] | 2008 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
Winter [44] | 2010 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.0 |
Psychological factors associated with QoL in ALS
Psychological Factor | Measure Psychological factor | Measure QoL | Time-points of assessment/F.U./trajectory | Bivariate Association
r
| Multivariate Association β/R2
| Ref. | Quality Score (max. 8) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOOD |
Anxiety
| |||||||||
Anxiety | HAM-A | HRQoL | SF-36 total | ns/nr | [40] | 6.5 | ||||
HAM-A | SF-36 PCS | ns/nr | ||||||||
HAM-A | SF-36 MCS | ns/nr | ||||||||
HADS-a1
| WHOQoL-BREF total | −0.53** | [37] | 7.0 | ||||||
Anxiety - Tension | POMS | WHOQoL-BREF total | nr | β = −0.47* | [19] | 5.5 | ||||
Anxiety | HADS-a | Global QoL | SEIQoL index score | ns/nr | [15] | 5.0 | ||||
HADS-a | SEIQoL-DW index score | ns/nr | [38] | 3.0 | ||||||
State anxiety | STAIsO
| MQOL total | nr | s**/nr | [41] | 5.5 | ||||
STAIs | MQOL total | <1 mo after D. | nr | s**/nr | ||||||
STAIs | MQOL total | >1 mo after D. | nr | s*/nr | ||||||
Trait anxiety | STAIt | MQOL total | <1 mo after D. | nr | s**/nr | |||||
STAIt | MQOL total | >1 mo after D. | nr | s* /nr | ||||||
Depression | ||||||||||
Depression—Dejection | POMS | HRQoL | WHOQoL-BREF total | nr | β = −0.24* | [19] | 5.5 | |||
Depression | HADS-d1
| WHOQoL-BREF total | −0.60** | β = −0.41* | [37] | 7.0 | ||||
HAM-D | SF-36 total | ns/nr | [40] | 6.5 | ||||||
HAM-D | SF-36 PCS | ns/nr | ||||||||
HAM-D | SF-36 MCS | ns/nr | ||||||||
ZDS | SF-36 total | −0.617** | [42] | 4.5 | ||||||
ZDS | QL-Index | s* /nr | β = −0.08* | [43] | 8.0 | |||||
BDI | EQ-5D index score | −0.430** | [10] | 4.0 | ||||||
BDIA
| SF-36 MCS | nr | β = −0.391** | [44] | 5.0 | |||||
BDIA
| SF-36 PCS | ns/nr | ||||||||
BDIA
| EQ-5D index score | nr | β = −0.272 | |||||||
BDIA
| EQ VAS | nr | β = −0.381* | |||||||
BDI | HRCS | 1 mo F.U. | nr | s / nr | [27] | 4.0 | ||||
BDI | HRCS | 12 mo F.U. | nr | s**/nr | ||||||
Depression x time | BDI | HRCS | over 12 mo | nr | ns | |||||
Depression | ADI-12 | Global QoL | SEIQoL index score | −0.36* | [28] | 4.5 | ||||
DSM-IV | Single-item-question3
| ns/nr | ns / nr | [45] | 5.5 | |||||
ZDS | SEIQoL-DW index score | nr | s*/nr | [13] | 5.5 | |||||
ZDS | MQOL Single Item Score | nr | s*/nr | |||||||
ZDS | SEIQoL index score | −0.205 | [42] | 4.5 | ||||||
ZDSo
| MQOL total | nr | s**/nr | [41] | 5.5 | |||||
HADS-d | SEIQoL index score | ns/nr | [15] | 5.0 | ||||||
HADS-d2
| SEIQoL-DW index score | ns/nr | [38] | 3.0 | ||||||
BDI | Single-item-question4
| 1 mo F.U. | nr | s*/nr | [27] | 4.0 | ||||
BDI | Single-item-question4
| 12 mo F.U. | nr | s*/nr | ||||||
Depression x time | BDI | Single item question4
|
over 12 mo | nr | ns | |||||
Confusion - Bewilderment | POMS | Global QoL | WHOQoL-BREF total | nr | β = 0.33* | [19] | 5.5 | |||
BELIEFS | Religiosity | |||||||||
Religiosity | IIR-tot | HRQoL | SIP/ALS-19 total | 0.169 | [14] | 4.5 | ||||
IIR-tot | SIP/ALS-19 total | 3 mo F.U. | nr | ns / nr | [31] | 6.0 | ||||
IIR-tot | SIP/ALS-19 total | 6 mo F.U. | nr | s***/nr | ||||||
Religion - coping | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.26P
| −0.01M
| [46] | 4.0 | ||||
Religiosity | IIR-tot | Global QoL | MQOL total | 0.15 | [16] | 5.0 | ||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 3–4 mo F.U. | 0.28 | |||||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 6–8 mo F.U. | 0.37** | |||||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 9–12 mo F.U. | 0.33* | |||||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 12–16 mo F.U. | 0.46** | |||||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 3 mo F.U. | nr | ns / nr | [31] | 6.0 | ||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 6 mo F.U. | nr | ns / nr | ||||||
IIR-tot | MQOL total | 0.221 | [14] | 4.5 | ||||||
IIR-tot | MQOL Single Item Score | 0.331** | ||||||||
Religiosity Private | IIR-Pr | MQOL total | 0.13 | β = 0.05; R2 = 0% | [16] | 5.0 | ||||
IIR-Pr | MQOL total | 3–4 mo F.U. | 0.42** | β = 0.31** | ||||||
IIR-Pr | MQOL total | 6–8 mo F.U. | 0.49** | β = 0.35** | ||||||
IIR-Pr | MQOL total | 9–12 mo F.U. | 0.34* | β = 0.21 | ||||||
IIR-Pr | MQOL total | 12–16 mo F.U. | 0.50** | β = 0.41***; R2 = 16 %***
| ||||||
IIR-Pr | SEIQoL-DW index score | s*/nr | [13] | 5.5 | ||||||
Spirituality | [16] | 5.0 | ||||||||
Existential well-being | SWBS6 - EWB | HRQoL | SIP total | ns/nr | [47] | 3.5 | ||||
Religious well-being | SWBS6 - RWB | SIP total | −0.996** | |||||||
Spiritual well-being | SWBS5 total | Global QoL | MQOL total | 0.08 | [16] | 5.0 | ||||
SWBS5 total | MQOL total | 3–4 mo F.U. | 0.08 | |||||||
SWBS5 total | MQOL total | 6–8 mo F.U. | 0.17 | |||||||
SWBS5 total | MQOL total | 9–12 mo F.U. | −0.12 | |||||||
SWBS5 total | MQOL total | 12–16 mo F.U. | 0.54** | |||||||
Mindfulness | ||||||||||
Mindfulness | LMS | Global QoL | MQOL Single Item Score | nr | β = 0.06*** | [29] | 6.5 | |||
Mindfulness x time | LMS | MQOL Single Item Score |
over 4 mo | nr | β = 0.009 | |||||
Coping | ||||||||||
Positive coping strategies | MNDCS1
| HRQoL | WHOQoL-BREF total | 0.46** | β = 0.35*** | [37] | 7.0 | |||
Distraction | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | 0.08P
| −0.11M
| [46] | 4.0 | ||||
Active coping | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.16P
| 0.11M
| ||||||
Denial | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.15P
| 0.23M
| ||||||
Emotional support | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | 0.38P* | 0.10M
| ||||||
Instrumental support | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.31P
| −0.02M
| ||||||
Disengagement | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | 0.16P
| 0.33M
| ||||||
Venting | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.10P
| −0.38*M
| ||||||
Positive reframing | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.22P
| 0.32M
| ||||||
Planning | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.23P
| 0.11M
| ||||||
Acceptance | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.18P
| 0.23M
| ||||||
Humor | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | −0.15P
| 0.25M
| ||||||
Self-blame | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | 0.11P
| −0.24M
| ||||||
Substance use | Brief COPE | SF-36 PCS/SF-36 MCS | 0.26P
| −0.44*M
| ||||||
Problem management | MNDCS2
| Global QoL | SEIQoL index score | β = 0.44** | [36] | 6.0 | ||||
Problem management | MNDCS2
| SEIQoL index score | 3-6 mo F.U. | nr | β = 0.42** | [30] | 6.0 | |||
Problem appraisal | MNDCS2
| SEIQoL index score | nr | β = 0.15 | [36] | 6.0 | ||||
Emotion management | MNDCS2
| SEIQoL index score | nr | β = −0.26 | ||||||
Emotional avoidance | MNDCS2
| SEIQoL index score | nr | β = 0.39* | ||||||
Emotional avoidance | MNDCS2
| SEIQoL index score | 3–6 mo F.U. | nr | β = 0.28 | [30] | 6.0 | |||
Hopelessness | BHS | Global QoL | Single-item-question3
| 0.43*** | s**/nr | [45] | 5.5 | |||
Perception of burden to others | ZBI - revised
| Global QoL | Single-item-question3
| 0.45*** | s*/nr | [45] | 5.5 | |||
Cognitive appraisal | ||||||||||
Appraisal total | Appraisal scale | Global QoL | SEIQoL index score | nr |
R
2
= 2 % | [36] | 6.0 | |||
Primary appraisal | Appraisal scale | SEIQoL index score | nr | β = −0.004 | ||||||
Appraisal of coping potential | Appraisal scale | SEIQoL index score | nr | β = 0.15 | ||||||
PERSONALITY | Agreeableness | NEO-FFI | Global QoL | Single-item-question4
| nr | β = 1.88* | [27] | 4.0 | ||
Agreeableness | NEO-FFI | HRQoL | HRCS | nr | β = 0.69* | |||||
Agreeableness x time | NEO-FFI | Global QoL | Single-item-question4
|
over 12 mo | nr | β = −0.28* | ||||
Agreeableness x time | NEO-FFI | HRQoL | HRCS |
over 12 mo | nr | β = −0.09* | ||||
Neuroticism | NEO-FFI | Global QoL | Single-item-question4
| nr | ns/nr | |||||
Extraversion | NEO-FFI | Single-item-question4
| nr | ns/nr | ||||||
Openness | NEO-FFI | Single-item-question4
| nr | ns/nr | ||||||
Conscientiousness | NEO-FFI | Single-item-question4
| nr | ns/nr |