Quality of life is a widely used yet ambiguously defined concept in healthcare, particularly in nursing, where it serves as a key indicator of patient-centered outcomes. This paper presents a concept analysis of quality of life using Walker and Avant’s method to clarify its meaning, structure, antecedents, and consequences within the context of nursing and healthcare. A comprehensive review of literature from PubMed, CINAHL, and ScienceDirect was conducted to identify definitions, attributes, empirical referents, and practical applications of the concept. The analysis revealed that quality of life is an abstract, dynamic, and multidimensional construct that encompasses physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains, with subjective contentment and individual perception of well-being as its core attributes. Antecedents of quality of life include existence of life, cognitive capacity, basic functional ability, and supportive social and environmental contexts. Model, borderline, and contrary cases illustrated that high quality of life can exist despite chronic illness when individuals demonstrate adaptation, resilience, and meaningful engagement in life. The consequences of quality of life include enhanced well-being, improved coping, better treatment adherence, and more holistic, patient-centered nursing care. Empirical referents such as the WHOQOL-BREF were identified as valid tools for operationalizing the concept, though subjective self-reports remain essential. The discussion emphasizes the dual subjective-objective nature of quality of life, its multidimensional interconnectedness, and its cultural sensitivity, particularly in the Pakistani context. The study concludes that quality of life should be integrated as a central outcome in nursing practice, with routine assessment and individualized, culturally responsive interventions to promote holistic patient well-being.

Keywords: Quality of Life, Concept Analysis, Nursing, Patient-centered Care, Walker and Avant Method, Multidimensional Construct, Well-being, Chronic Illness, Coping and Adaptation, WHOQOL-BREF, Holistic Care, Cultural Context.

Atagün, A.O., Kamacı, H. (2023). Strait fuzzy sets, strait fuzzy rough sets and their similarity measures-based decision-making systems. International Journal of Systems Science, 54(12): 2519–2535. 

Atagün, A.O., Kamacı, H. (2023). Strait soft sets and strait rough sets with applications in decision making. Soft Computing, 27(20): 14585–14599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09026-7.

Fatimah, F., Rosadi, D., Hakim, R.B.F., Alcantud, J.C.R. (2017). N-soft sets and their decision-making algorithms. Soft Computing, 22(12): 3829–3842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2838-6.

Maji, P.K., Biswas, R., Roy, A.R. (2001). Fuzzy soft sets. The Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 9(3): 589–602.

Molodtsov, D. (1999). Soft set theory—first results. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 37(4–5): 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-1221(99)00056-5.

Nazra, A., Jenizon, Asdi, Y., Zulvera (2022). Generalized hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy N-soft sets—first result. AIMS Mathematics, 7(7): 12650–12670. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022700.

Putri, F.Z., Nazra, A., Yanita, Y. (2024). Suatu aplikasi dari penggabungan konsep strait fuzzy set dan strait soft set. Jurnal Lebesgue: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, Matematika dan Statistika, 5(2): 1171–1176. https:// doi.org/10.46306/lb.v5i2.704.

Roy, A.R., Maji, P.K. (2007). A fuzzy soft set theoretic approach to decision making problems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 203(2): 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2006.04.008.

Shodik, F., Nazra, A., Yanita, Y. (2024). Aplikasi dari N-soft set pada data dengan objek berkelompok. Jurnal Lebesgue: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, Matematika dan Statistika, 5(2): 1304–1308. 

Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3): 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(65) 90241.

Source of Funding:

This study did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not–for–profit sectors.

Competing Interests Statement:

Authors have declared no competing interests.

Consent for publication:

The authors declare that they consented to the publication of this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement:

Not applicable for this study.

Informed Consent:

Not applicable for this study.