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 outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients’ own perspectives about their health and medical condition, and there is evidence that their use can lead to improvements in the quality of care and to better-informed clinical decisions. Their application in cardiovascular populations has grown over the past decades. This statement describes what PROs are, and it provides an inventory of disease-specific and domain-specific PROs that have been developed for cardiovascular populations. International standards and quality indices have been published, which can guide the selection of PROs for clinical practice and in clinical trials and research; patients as well as experts in psychometrics should be involved in choosing which are most appropriate. Collaborations are needed to define criteria for using PROs to guide regulatory decisions, and the utility of PROs for comparing and monitoring the quality of care and for allocating resources should be evaluated. New sources for recording PROs include wearable digital health devices, medical registries, and electronic health record. Advice is given for the optimal use of PROs in shared clinical decision-making in cardiovascular medicine, and concerning future directions for their wider application.

Electronic health (e-Health) interventions are emerging as an effective alternative model for improving secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to describe the effectiveness of different modes of delivery and components in e-Health secondary prevention programmes on adherence to treatment, modifiable CAD risk factors and psychosocial outcomes for patients with CAD. A systematic review was carried out based on articles found in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase. Studies evaluating secondary prevention e-Health programmes provided through mobile-Health (m-Health), web-based technology or a combination of m-Health and web-based technology were eligible. The main outcomes measured were adherence to treatment, modifiable CAD risk factors and psychosocial outcomes. The quality appraisal of the studies included was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for RCT. The results were synthesised narratively. A total of 4834 titles were identified and 1350 were screened for eligibility. After reviewing 123 articles in full, 24 RCTs including 3654 participants with CAD were included. Eight studies delivered secondary prevention programmes through m-Health, nine through web-based technology, and seven studies used a combination of m-Health and web-based technology. The majority of studies employed two or three secondary prevention components, of which health education was employed in 21 studies. The m-Health programmes reported positive effects on adherence to medication. Most studies evaluating web-based technology programmes alone or in combination with m-Health also utilised traditional CR, and reported improved modifiable CAD risk factors. The quality appraisal showed a moderate methodological quality of the studies. Evidence exists that supports the use of e-Health interventions for improving secondary prevention of CAD. However, a comparison across studies highlighted a wide variability of components and outcomes within the different modes of delivery. High quality trials are needed to define the most efficient mode of delivery and components capable of addressing a favourable outcome for patients. Not applicable.

In-hospital delirium is associated with adverse outcomes and is underdiagnosed, limiting research and clinical follow-up. To compare the incidence of in-hospital delirium determined by chart-based review of electronic medical records (D-CBR) with delirium discharge diagnoses (D-DD). Furthermore, to identify differences in symptoms, treatments and delirium triggers between D-CBR and D-DD. The community-based cohort included 2,115 participants in the Hordaland Health Study born between 1925 and 1927. Between 2018 and 2022, we retrospectively reviewed hospital electronic medical records from baseline (1997–99) until death prior to 2023. D-DD and D-CBR were validated using The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for delirium. Of the 2,115 participants, 638 had in-hospital delirium. The incidence rate (IR) of D-CBR was 29.8 [95% confidence interval 28, 32] per 1,000 person-years, whereas the IR by D-DD was 3.4 [2.8, 4.2]. The IR ratio was 9.14 (P < 0.001). Patients who received pharmacological treatment for delirium (n = 121, odds ratio (OR) 3.4, [2.1, 5.4], P < 0.001), who were affected by acute memory impairment (n = 149, OR 2.8, [1.8, 4.5], P < 0.001), or change in perception (n = 137, OR 2.9, [1.8, 4.6] P < 0.001) had higher odds for D-DD. In contrast, post-operative cases (OR 0.2, [0.1, 0.4], P < 0.001) had lower odds for D-DD. Underdiagnosis of in-hospital delirium was a major issue in our study, especially in less severe delirium cases. Our findings emphasise the need for integrating systematic delirium diagnostics and documentation into hospital admission and discharge routines.