Search

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Quality 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., Methods: A 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., Results: QOL 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., Conclusion: QOL 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.

Patient-reported outcome monitoring with clinical feedback systems (PRO/CFS) has been employed in many disease states to measure and improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Exploring the role of PRO/CFS in treatment for obesity may prove valuable. Systematic reviews were summarized to determine the effectiveness of PRO/CFS on HRQOL in any disease area. Primary studies evaluating the effect of PRO/CFS on HRQOL in treatment for obesity were also considered for inclusion. Systematic searches were performed in The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, Epistemonikos, HTA, DARE, CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, BMJ Clinical Evidence, PDQ-Evidence and PubPsych. Two reviewers independently screened references until final inclusion and critically appraised included reviews using PRISMA checklist. Five systematic reviews and no primary studies met inclusion criteria. Although results were inconsistent, effectiveness of PRO/CFS on HRQOL was demonstrated in some diseases/treatments (e.g. psychiatric treatment; symptom burden in cancer treatment). No trials using PRO/CFS in treatment for obesity were identified. In some trials, PRO/CFS was not fully integrated into consultations, thereby PRO/CFS was not extensively studied. General effectiveness of PRO/CFS on HRQOL is inconclusive due to heterogeneous and statistically insignificant findings, and lack of stringency in conceptualization and execution of PRO/CFS. There are no data relevant to treatment for obesity. Future studies should use rigorous methodology to examine the effectiveness of PRO/CFS in treatment for obesity., (© 2018 World Obesity Federation.)