A systematic review of the quality of life assessment tools for cats in the published literature

• Published in: The veterinary journal (1997) Vol. 272; p. 105658
• Main Authors: Doit, H., Dean, R.S., Duz, M., Brennan, M.L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.06.2021
• Subjects: Assessment tools; Cat; Quality of life; Validated; Well-being; Validated; Well-being; Assessment tools; Cat; Quality of life
• ISSN: 1090-0233; 1532-2971
• DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2021.105658

•Assessment of quality of life was carried out in less than half (42%) of manuscripts.•Within 40 papers assessing quality of life, 32 unique assessment tools were found.•Only eight of the quality of life tools found were validated.•Validated tools exist for feline chronic kidney, skin and cardiac disease and diabetes.•Three validated tools exist for healthy cats without specific diseases or conditions. Quality of life (QoL) is an important parameter to assess in cats, as it can be pivotal to important decision-making. Research reports that owners of cats with heart disease would trade longevity for QoL, and treatment associated improvement in QoL is very important for cats with chronic kidney disease. This systematic review aimed to explore the published literature to identify the number and range of QoL assessment tools available to researchers and veterinary professionals, by discovering tools which have already been used in published studies. Medline and CAB Abstracts were searched in March 2018, using terms relevant to cats and QoL or well-being. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and information on uniqueness, validation and a short description of each tool extracted. A total of 1138 manuscripts were identified, of which 96 met all criteria. Forty of 96 manuscripts contained an assessment of QoL, using one of 32 unique tools identified. Sixteen of the tools identified were structured, making detailed patient assessments. Only eight of the structured tools were validated, and of these, three could be applied to healthy cats; the remainder being specific to a disease or being hospitalised. Some validated tools appeared in more than one manuscript. Overall, 12 manuscripts used a validated tool. In the 16 unstructured tools, five tools assessed QoL by assigning a single word (e.g. ‘poor’). Eight tools assessed QoL on a single Likert scale (e.g. a number between 1 and 5). This work identifies the tools that are currently available for the assessment of QoL by researchers and veterinary professionals. Additionally, it demonstrates that many are not validated or lack detailed animal assessment, highlighting that further work in this important area is needed.