Skip to main content
Log in

Towards the assessment of quality of life in patients with disorders of consciousness

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To generate foundational knowledge in the creation of a quality-of-life instrument for patients who are clinically diagnosed as being in a vegetative or minimally conscious state but are able to communicate by modulating their brain activity (i.e., behaviourally nonresponsive and covertly aware). The study aimed to identify a short list of key domains that could be used to formulate questions for an instrument that determines their self-reported quality of life.

Methods

A novel two-pronged strategy was employed: (i) a scoping review of quality-of-life instruments created for patient populations sharing some characteristics with patients who are behaviourally nonresponsive and covertly aware was done to compile a set of potentially relevant domains of quality of life; and (ii) a three-round Delphi consensus process with a multidisciplinary panel of experts was done to determine which of the identified domains of quality of life are most important to those who are behaviourally nonresponsive and covertly aware. Five expert groups were recruited for this study including healthcare workers, neuroscientists, bioethicists, quality-of-life methodologists, and patient advocates.

Results

Thirty-five individuals participated in the study with an average response rate of 95% per round. Over the three rounds, experts reached consensus on 34 of 44 domains (42 domains were identified in the scoping review and two new domains were added based on suggestions by experts). 22 domains were rated as being important for inclusion in a quality-of-life instrument and 12 domains were deemed to be of less importance. Participants agreed that domains related to physical pain, communication, and personal relationships were of primary importance. Based on subgroup analyses, there was a high degree of consistency among expert groups.

Conclusions

Quality of life should be a central patient-reported outcome in all patient populations regardless of patients’ ability to communicate. It remains to be determined how covertly aware patients perceive their circumstances and quality of life after suffering a life-altering injury. Nonetheless, it is important that any further dialogue on what constitutes a life worth living should not occur without direct patient input.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Maas, A. I., et al. (2017). Traumatic brain injury: Integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. The Lancet Neurology,16(12), 987–1048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gean, A. D., & Fischbein, N. J. (2010). Head trauma. Neuroimaging Clinics,20(4), 527–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Greenwald, B., & Nori, P. (1995). Disorders of consciousness. Manual of Traumatic Brain Injury Management,1, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Payne, K., et al. (1996). Physicians’ attitudes about the care of patients in the persistent vegetative state: a national survey. Annals of Internal Medicine,125(2), 104–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Laureys, S., Owen, A. M., & Schiff, N. D. (2004). Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders. The Lancet Neurology,3(9), 537–546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Owen, A. M., et al. (2006). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science,313(5792), 1402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Monti, M. M., et al. (2010). Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. New England Journal of Medicine,362(7), 579–589.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernández-Espejo, D., & Owen, A. M. (2013). Detecting awareness after severe brain injury. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,14(11), 801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Naci, L., & Owen, A. M. (2013). Making every word count for nonresponsive patients. JAMA Neurology,70(10), 1235–1241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kondziella, D., et al. (2016). Preserved consciousness in vegetative and minimal conscious states: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry,87(5), 485–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine,41(10), 1403–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pietersma, S., de Vries, M., & van den Akker-van, M. E. (2014). Domains of quality of life: Results of a three-stage Delphi consensus procedure among patients, family of patients, clinicians, scientists and the general public. Quality of Life Research,23(5), 1543–1556.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keeney, S., McKenna, H., & Hasson, F. (2010). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). Minimizing non-response in the Delphi process: How to respond to non-response. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,12(17), 62–78.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Borgiel, A. E., et al. (1989). Recruiting family physicians as participants in research. Family Practice,6(3), 168–172.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research,6, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Skevington, S. M. (1998). Investigating the relationship between pain and discomfort and quality of life, using the WHOQOL. Pain,76(3), 395–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Naci, L., et al. (2012). Brain–computer interfaces for communication with nonresponsive patients. Annals of Neurology,72(3), 312–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of the expert panel for lending their time and expertise, and without whom this work would not have been possible. Members of the expert panel included Salman Abbasi (Patient and Family Advisor), Ruth Barclay (University of Manitoba), John Gordon Boyd (Queens University), Linda Bruni (Patient and Family Advisor), Srivas Chennu (University of Kent), Joyce Cramer (Yale University), Damian Cruse (University of Birmingham), Athena Demertzi (University of Liège), David Feeny (McMaster University), Brian Feldman (University of Toronto), Davina Fernández-Espejo (University of Birmingham), Paola Finoia (Cambridge University), Teneille Gofton (Western University), Mackenzie Graham (Oxford University), Jennifer Hawkins (Duke University), Gil Hersch (George Mason University), Terry Howard (Patient and Family Advisor), Guy Kahane (Oxford University), Nadira King (Patient and Family Advisor), Ayse Kuspinar (University of Waterloo), Marcello Massimini (University of Milan), Nancy Mayo (McGill University), Lorina Naci (Trinity College Dublin), Margarita Perez (Patient and Family Advisor), Andrew Peterson (George Mason University), Leonard Rodrigues (Patient and Family Advisor), Keith Sequeira (Western University), Anthony Skelton (Western University), Jeanne Teitelbaum (University of Montreal), Juan Torres (Patient and Family Advisor), Andrea Townson (University of British Columbia), Paul and Jeff Tremblay (Patient and Family Advisor), Alexis Turgeon (Université de Laval), Samuel Wiebe (University of Calgary), and Bryan Young (Western University).

Funding

This project was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-133705).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmine Tung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Charles Weijer receives consulting income from Eli Lilly & Company Canada. The other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Ethical approval

Approval for this study was obtained from the Western University Health Science Research Ethics Board (#108066). Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tung, J., Speechley, K.N., Gofton, T. et al. Towards the assessment of quality of life in patients with disorders of consciousness. Qual Life Res 29, 1217–1227 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02390-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02390-8

Keywords

Navigation