Measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality-of-life measures in cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review protocol

Objective: This review will identify and appraise existing evidence on the measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures used in cardiac rehabilitation programs. The review will map the measure domains against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures domains for cardiovascular disease. 

Introduction: Improving HRQoL is an international key indicator for delivering high-quality and person-centered secondary prevention programs. Many instruments and measures assess HRQoL in individuals undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Utility-based measures are suitable for calculating quality-adjusted life years, a required outcome metric in cost–utility analysis. Cost–utility analysis requires the use of utility-based HRQoL measures. However, there is no consensus on which utility-based measure is best for populations undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. 

Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies will include patients aged Z18 years with cardiovascular disease who are undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Empirical studies that assess quality of life or HRQoL using a utility-based, health-related, patient-reported outcome measure or a measure accompanied by health state utilities will be eligible. Studies must report at least 1 of the following measurement properties: reliability, validity, responsiveness. 

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of measurement properties. The following databases will be searched from inception to the present: MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Informit, PsyclNFO, REHABDATA, and the Cochrane Library. Studies will be critically appraised using the The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. The review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.