Scoping review protocol maps instruments assessing quality of life in visual impairment, indicating significant implications for health strategies.
BACKGROUND Visual impairment affects approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide and has significant impacts on various aspects of life, including physical, social, economic, and emotional domains. Assessing the quality of life of these individuals is essential for identifying their needs and guiding health promotion strategies. However, no studies were found that systematically organize the instruments used for this evaluation specifically in people with visual impairment. OBJECTIVE To systematically map the scientific evidence regarding the instruments used to assess quality of life in individuals with visual impairment. METHODS The PCC acronym (population, concept, and context) guided the development of the research question: Which instruments available in the scientific literature are used to assess the quality of life of individuals with visual impairments? Data will be collected from major databases and grey literature, with duplicates managed in Mendeley® and screening conducted independently by two reviewers using Rayyan®. Full texts will be assessed based on eligibility criteria, and data will be synthesized in Microsoft Excel® and reported using a flowchart and narrative summary, following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. RESULTS The present protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform on July 28, 2025. The results of this study will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is expected that the findings will provide valuable support for the development and advancement of a broader research project. CONCLUSIONS Identifying and evaluating instruments used to assess the quality of life in individuals with visual impairments is crucial to ensure the use of reliable and scientifically sound tools. This process not only advances scientific knowledge but also informs public health policies aimed at promoting equity, inclusion, and improved living conditions for this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ribeiro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: