Dataset Information

Systematic review of 29 self-report instruments for assessing quality of life in older adults receiving aged care services.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality of life (QoL) outcomes are used to monitor quality of care for older adults accessing aged care services, yet it remains unclear which QoL instruments best meet older adults', providers' and policymakers' needs. This review aimed to (1) identify QoL instruments used in aged care and describe them in terms of QoL domains measured and logistical details; (2) summarise in which aged care settings the instruments have been used and (3) discuss factors to consider in deciding on the suitability of QoL instruments for use in aged care services.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to 2021.

Eligibility criteria

Instruments were included if they were designed for adults (>18 years), available in English, been applied in a peer-reviewed research study examining QoL outcomes in adults >65 years accessing aged care (including home/social care, residential/long-term care) and had reported psychometrics.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two researchers independently reviewed the measures and extracted the data. Data synthesis was performed via narrative review of eligible instruments.

Results

292 articles reporting on 29 QoL instruments were included. Eight domains of QoL were addressed: physical health, mental health, emotional state, social connection, environment, autonomy and overall QoL. The period between 1990 and 2000 produced the greatest number of newly developed instruments. The EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Short Form-series were used across multiple aged care contexts including home and residential care. More recent instruments (eg, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)) tend to capture emotional sentiment towards personal circumstances and higher order care needs, in comparison with more established instruments (eg, EQ-5D) which are largely focused on health status.

Conclusions

A comprehensive list of QoL instruments and their characteristics is provided to inform instrument choice for use in research or for care quality assurance in aged care settings, depending on needs and interests of users.

SUBMITTER: Siette J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8603300 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chinese context.A cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study. The sample consisted of 1152 older adults. Data were collected by a questionnaire including the Chinese version of SASE (SASE-CHI), the Chinese version of ASAS-R (ASAS-R-CHI) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency scale (ESCA). Homogeneity and stability, content, construct and concurrent validity, and sensitivity and specificity were assessed.The Cronbach's alpha (α) of SASE-CHI was 0.89, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.15 to r = 0.81, and the test-retest correlation coefficient (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P<0.001). The Cronbach's α of ASAS-R-CHI was 0.78, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.20 to r = 0.65, and the test-retest ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96; P<0.001). The content validity index (CVI) of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI was 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) confirmed a good construct validity of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI. The Pearson's rank correlation coefficients, as a measure of concurrent validity, between total score of SASE-CHI and ESCA and ASAS-R-CHI and ESCA were assessed to 0.65 (P<0.001) and 0.62 (P<0.001), respectively. Regarding ESCA as the criterion, the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the cut-point of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.86), respectively.There is no significant difference between the two instruments. Each has its own characteristics, but SASE-CHI is more suitable for older adults. The key point is that the users can choose the most appropriate scale according to the specific situation.

Project description:Background and aimsThe accuracy of current screening instruments for identification of substance use in pregnancy is unclear, particularly given methodological shortcomings in existing research. This diagnostic accuracy study compared five existing instruments for ability to identify illicit drug, opioid and alcohol use, under privacy expectations consistent with applied practice and using a gold standard incorporating toxicological analysis.DesignProspective cross-sectional screening accuracy study.SettingThree sites encompassing four prenatal care clinics in the United States.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 1220 racially, ethnically and socio-economically diverse pregnant women aged 18 years and over.MeasurementsIn Phase I, participants completed the five screening instruments in counterbalanced order. Instruments included the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P), CRAFFT (acronym for five-item screener with items related to car, relax, alone, forget, friends and trouble), 5Ps (parents, peers, partner, pregnancy, past), Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener (WIDUS) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Quick Screen. In Phase II, participants provided a urine sample and completed a calendar recall-based interview regarding substance use. These screeners were tested, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and accuracy statistics, against a reference standard consisting of substance use in three classes (illicit drugs, opioids and alcohol), considered positive if use was evident via 30-day calendar recall or urine analysis.FindingsThree hundred and fifteen of 1220 participants (26.3%) met reference standard criteria for positivity. The single-item screening questions from the NIDA Quick Screen showed high specificity (0.99) for all substances, but very poor sensitivity (0.10-0.27). The 5Ps showed high sensitivity (0.80-0.88) but low specificity (0.35-0.37). The CRAFFT, SURP-P and 5Ps had the highest area under the curve (AUC) for alcohol (0.67, 0.66 and 0.62, respectively), and the WIDUS had the highest AUC for illicit drugs and opioids (0.70 and 0.69, respectively). Performance of all instruments varied significantly with race, site and economic status.ConclusionsOf five screening instruments for substance use in pregnancy tested (Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P), CRAFFT, 5Ps, Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener (WIDUS) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Quick Screen), none showed both high sensitivity and high specificity, and area under the curve was low for nearly all measures.