Search

Objectives: To assess the impact of a Consumer Directed Care (CDC) model of service delivery on the quality of life of older people receiving home care packages. Methods: Quality of life was assessed using validated instruments. The relationship between quality of life and length of time exposed to CDC was examined using descriptive statistical and multivariate regression analyses. Results: Consenting older adults (n = 150) in receipt of home care packages participated. Quality of life and capability scores were higher for older people in receipt of a CDC model of service delivery for <12 months compared to those receiving the model of care for longer, although this difference was not statistically significant. However, older people with more recent exposure to CDC indicated a stronger capability to do things that made them feel valued. Conclusion: Extended longitudinal follow‐up is needed to facilitate a detailed examination of the relationship between the evolution of CDC and its longer‐term influences on quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examined the relationships between a newly developed older person-specific non-preference-based quality of life (QoL) instrument (Older People's Quality of Life brief questionnaire (OPQoL-brief)) and two generic preference-based instruments (the EQ-5D-3L Level (EQ-5D-3 L) and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in a community-dwelling population of Australian older people receiving aged care services.Methods: We formulated hypotheses about the convergent validity between the instruments (examined by Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney, Kruskal Wallis and Spearman's correlation tests) and levels of agreement (assessed using intra class correlation (ICC) and modified Bland-Altman plots based on normalized Z EQ-5D-3 L and ASCOT utilities and OPQoL-Brief summary scores).Results: The utilities/summary scores for 87 participants (aged 65-93 years) were moderately but positively correlated. Moderate convergent validity was evident for a number of instrument dimensions with the strongest relationship (r = 0.57) between 'enjoy life' (OPQoL-Brief) and 'social contact' (ASCOT). The overall ICC was 0.54 and Bland-Altman scatter plots showed 3-6% of normalized Z-scores were outside the 95% limits of agreement suggesting moderate agreement between all three instruments (agreement highest between the OPQoL-Brief and the ASCOT).Conclusions: Our results suggest that the OPQoL-Brief, the ASCOT and the EQ-5D_3L are suitable for measuring quality of life outcomes in community-dwelling populations of older people. Given the different constructs underpinning these instruments, we recommend that choice of instrument should be guided by the context in which the instruments are being applied. Currently, the OPQoL-Brief is not suitable for use in cost-utility analyses as it is not preference-based. Given their different perspectives, we recommend that both the ASCOT and the EQ-5D are applied simultaneously to capture broader aspects of quality of life and health status within cost-utility analyses within the aged care sector. Future research directed towards the development of a new single preference-based instrument that incorporates both health status and broader aspects of quality of life within quality adjusted life year calculations for older people would be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for older adults have traditionally focused on health status. However, there is increasing recognition of the need to develop new instruments to capture quality of life in a broader sense in the face of age-associated increasing frailty and declining health status, particularly in the economic evaluation of aged and social care interventions that may have positive benefits beyond health., Objective: To explore the relative importance of health and broader quality of life domains for defining quality of life from the perspective of older South Australians., Methods: Older adults (n=21) from a day rehabilitation facility in Southern Adelaide, South Australia attended one of two audio-recorded focus groups. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) study design was adopted. The study included three main components. First was a general group discussion on quality of life and the factors of importance in defining quality of life. Second was a structured ranking exercise in which individuals were asked to rank domains from the brief Older People's Quality of Life (OPQOL-brief) questionnaire and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in order of importance. Third, participants were asked to self-complete the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D), a measure of health status, and two broader quality-of-life measures: the OPQOL-brief and ASCOT., Results: Mean scores on the EQ-5D, OPQOL-brief and ASCOT were 0.71 (standard deviation [SD] 0.20, range 0.06-1.00), 54.6 (SD 5.5, range 38-61) and 0.87 (SD 0.13, range 0.59-1.00), respectively, with higher scores reflecting better ratings. EQ-5D scores were positively associated with OPQOL-brief (Spearman's Rho: 0.730; p<0.01), but not ASCOT. Approximately half (52.4%) of the participants ranked either 'health' or 'psychological and emotional well-being' as the domain most important to their quality of life. However, one-third (33.3%) of the total sample ranked a non-health domain from the ASCOT or OPQOL-brief (safety, dignity, independence) as the most important contributing factor to their overall quality of life. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts supported the high value of both health-related (health, psychological well-being) and social (independence, safety) domains to quality of life., Conclusions: Older adults value both health and social domains as important to their overall quality of life. Future economic evaluations of health, community and aged-care services for older adults should include assessment of both health-related and broader aspects of quality of life.