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

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruptions in the implementation of programs across educational institutions. Nursing students, being both young adults and by practical training, part of the health care system, may be particularly vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to explore the associations between self-reported fear of COVID-19, general health, psychological distress and overall quality of life (QoL) in a sample of Norwegian baccalaureate nursing students compared to reference data. Methods The survey targeted baccalaureate nursing students from five universities in February 2021. An electronic questionnaire consisted of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), the Hopkins Symptom Checklist 5 (SCL-5), one general health and one overall QoL question. The respondents’ mean scores were compared to reference data. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were evaluated. Results In total, 2605 out of 6088 (43%) students responded. Their FCV-19S scores (mean 2.45, CI 2.42, 2.48) were significantly higher than those of the reference population (mean 1.8, P < 0.001). Nursing students scores showed significantly lower general health (mean 3.50 ± 0.93 SD, population mean = 3.57, Cohen’s d = 0.07), higher levels of psychological distress (mean 2.68 ± 1.03 SD, population mean = 2.12, Cohen’s d = 0.55) and lower overall QoL (mean 5.50 ± 2.16 SD, population mean = 8.00, Cohen’s d = 1.16) compared to pre-pandemic reference data. FCV-19S scores were significantly associated with levels of general health (Cohen’s d = 0.26), psychological distress (Cohen’s d = 0.76) and overall QoL (Cohen’s d = 0.18). Conclusions Baccalaureate nursing students reported worse outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic on general health, psychological distress and overall QoL compared to the reference population. Level of fear of Covid-19, however, accounted for few of these differences. Other factors related to the pandemic may have reduced nursing students’ overall QoL.

Renal recipients need to acquire significant amount of knowledge for their life post-transplantation. More knowledge on kidney recipients' experiences after transplantation with regard to the patient education provided is needed. Sixteen renal recipients were interviewed 4-6 weeks post-transplantation about content and methods in the patient education programme. Data were analysed in the hermeneutic tradition. The patients experienced barriers towards learning in the early post-operative phase. Kidney transplantation was expressed as a 'turning point in life', causing learning difficulties because of both physical and mental stress. Survival knowledge was the label for topics concerning medication and rejection as they were experienced as essential for life. Situational knowledge, that is, knowledge related to recipients' individual life situations, requires further details in the main topics provided. The difference between knowing and practising what was taught was experienced as troublesome. The recipients expressed that a supportive learning atmosphere characterized by patience, respect, continuity and active participation was essential. This study revealed new knowledge about renal recipients' need for individual application of the educational content, as well as cognitive difficulties, and other factors impacting on learning in the early post-operative phase. The patients' perspective is an important and useful aid in creating effective interventions in this field.

AimThe aim of this study was to investigate health literacy in patients with chronic kidney disease in a multidimensional perspective.DesignA descriptive, cross‐sectional study.MethodsPatients with chronic kidney disease at stages 3–5 were included in the study between February–August 2017 (N = 187). Health literacy was measured by the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify associations between health literacy and demographic and clinical variables. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify characteristics of groups with high and low health literacy.ResultsFinding and critical appraise health information were the most challenging dimensions of health literacy. Female gender, lower level of education, greater number of prescribed medications and depressive symptoms were associated with lower health literacy. The group identified with lowest health literacy was further characterized by living alone and presence of comorbidity.

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