Purpose: This systematic review was performed to identify all relevant health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with COVID-19. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken in April 2020. In four teams of three reviewers each, all abstracts were independently reviewed for inclusion by two reviewers. Using a pre-defined checklist of 93 criteria for each publication, data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and subsequently compared and discussed. If necessary, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The search was updated in February 2021 to retrieve new publications on HRQoL issues including issues related to the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Results: The search in April 2020 identified 3342 potentially relevant publications, and 339 publications were selected for full-text review and data extraction. We identified 75 distinct symptoms and other HRQoL issues categorized into 12 thematic areas; from general symptoms such as fever, myalgia, and fatigue, to neurological and psychological issues. The updated search revealed three extra issues experienced during active disease and long-term problems with fatigue, psychological issues and impaired cognitive function. Conclusion: This first comprehensive systematic review provides a detailed overview of the wide range of HRQoL issues experienced by patients with COVID-19 throughout the course of the disease. It demonstrates the devastating impact of the disease and provides critically important information for clinicians, to enable them to better recognize the disease and to provide knowledge important for treatment and follow-up. The results provided the foundation for the international development of a COVID-19 specific patient-reported HRQoL questionnaire.

5-year overall survival rates have surpassed 90% for childhood acute lymphocytic leukaemia, but survivors are at risk for permanent health sequelae. Although event-free survival appropriately represents the outcome for cancers with poor overall survival, this metric is inadequate when cure rates are high but challenged by serious, persistent complications. Accordingly, a group of experts in paediatric haematology-oncology, representative of 17 international acute lymphocytic leukaemia study groups, launched an initiative to construct a measure, designated severe toxicity-free survival (STFS), to quantify the occurrence of physician-prioritised toxicities to be integrated with standard cancer outcome reporting. Five generic inclusion criteria (not present before cancer diagnosis, symptomatic, objectifiable, of unacceptable severity, permanent, or requiring unacceptable treatments) were used to assess 855 health conditions, which resulted in inclusion of 21 severe toxicities. Consensus definitions were reached through a modified Delphi process supplemented by two additional plenary meetings. The 21 severe toxicities include severe adverse health conditions that substantially affect activities of daily living and are refractory to therapy (eg, refractory seizures), are without therapeutic options (eg, blindness), or require substantially invasive treatment (eg, cardiac transplantation). Incorporation of STFS assessment into clinical trials has the potential to improve and diversify treatment strategies, focusing not only on traditional outcome events and overall survival but also the frequencies of the most severe toxicities. The two major aims of this Review were to: prioritise and define unacceptable long-term toxicity for patients with childhood acute lymphocytic leukaemia, and define how these toxicities should be combined into a composite quantity to be integrated with other reported outcomes. Although STFS quantifies the clinically unacceptable health tradeoff for cure using childhood acute lymphocytic leukaemia as a model disease, the prioritised severe toxicities are based on generic considerations of relevance to any other cancer diagnosis and age group.

Background: Parents of children who are diagnosed with a poor-prognosis cancer want to be involved in making treatment-related decisions for their child. They often make repeated decisions depending on their child’s response to treatment and can experience decisional regret as a consequence. Understanding parent values and preferences when making treatment-related decisions may help enhance discussions with healthcare professionals and identify additional ways of providing support to this parent population. Objectives: To explore parent values and preferences underpinning treatment decision-making for children receiving cancer-directed therapy for a poor prognosis cancer. Methods: A scoping review of research literature and systematic reviews from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Articles which included parents of a child who received cancer-directed therapy for a poor-prognosis childhood cancer, under the age of eighteen years were considered. Four electronic databases were searched (CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science Core Collections). Reference and citation lists of all included full-text articles were also searched. Summative content analysis was used to synthesise findings and develop themes. Results: Twelve articles were included. Parent decision-making was affected by underpinning factors: hope for a cure, fear of their child dying and uncertainty. Influencing factors: opinions of others, child’s wishes, and faith and religion had the potential to inform decision-making processes. Parents valued having enough time, being a good parent and being involved in decision-making. Preferences within these values varied resulting in the potential for conflict and ‘trade-offs’ in making decisions. Conclusions: Parent decision-making in poor-prognosis childhood cancer is complex and extends beyond values and preferences. Underpinning factors and values are consistent through the decision-making process with influencing factors and preferences varying between parents. Preferences can conflict when parents want to continue cancer-directed therapy whilst maintaining their child’s quality of life or can change depending on a parents’ cognitive state as they realise cure might be unlikely.