Literature DB >> 24565145

Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review.

Peter Makai1, Werner B F Brouwer2, Marc A Koopmanschap2, Elly A Stolk2, Anna P Nieboer2.   

Abstract

Gaining health may not be the main goal of healthcare services aimed at older people, which may (also) seek to improve wellbeing. This emphasizes the need of finding appropriate outcome measures for economic evaluation of such services, particularly in long-term care, capturing more than only health-related quality of life (HrQol). This review assesses the usefulness of HrQol and wellbeing instruments for economic evaluations specifically aimed at older people, focusing on generic and preference-based questionnaires measuring wellbeing in particular. We systematically searched six databases and extracted instruments used to assess HrQol and wellbeing outcomes. Instruments were compared based on their usefulness for economic evaluation of services aimed at older people (dimensions measured, availability of utility scores, extent of validation). We identified 487 articles using 34 generic instruments: 22 wellbeing (two of which were preference-based) and 11 HrQol instruments. While standard HrQol instruments measure physical, social and psychological dimensions, wellbeing instruments contain additional dimensions such as purpose in life and achievement, security, and freedom. We found four promising wellbeing instruments for inclusion in economic evaluation: Ferrans and Powers QLI and the WHO-Qol OLD, ICECAP-O and the ASCOT. Ferrans and Powers QLI and the WHO-Qol OLD are widely validated but lack preference-weights while for ICECAP-O and the ASCOT preference-weights are available, but are less widely validated. Until preference-weights are available for the first two instruments, the ICECAP-O and the ASCOT currently appear to be the most useful instruments for economic evaluations in services aimed at older people. Their limitations are that (1) health dimensions may be captured only partially and (2) the instruments require further validation. Therefore, we currently recommend using the ICECAP-O or the ASCOT alongside the EQ-5D or SF-6D when evaluating interventions aimed at older people.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-utility analysis; Long-term care; Older people; Quality of life; Review

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24565145     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  67 in total

1.  Brazilian urban population norms derived from the health-related quality of life SF-6D.

Authors:  Rozana Mesquita Ciconelli; Marcos Bosi Ferraz; Sérgio Kowalski; Geraldo da Rocha Castelar Pinheiro; Emilia Inoue Sato
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?

Authors:  Peter Makai; Willemijn Looman; Eddy Adang; René Melis; Elly Stolk; Isabelle Fabbricotti
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-04-24

3.  Development of a quality of life questionnaire for nursing home residents in mainland China.

Authors:  Dongjuan Xu; Jie Gao; Liqin Chen; Huanyu Mou; Xiaorong Wang; Jiying Ling; Kefang Wang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  An Investigation of the Overlap Between the ICECAP-A and Five Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments.

Authors:  Lidia Engel; Duncan Mortimer; Stirling Bryan; Scott A Lear; David G T Whitehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Are the EQ-5D-3L and the ICECAP-O responsive among older adults with impaired mobility? Evidence from the Vancouver Falls Prevention Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jennifer C Davis; John R Best; Larry Dian; Karim M Khan; Chun Liang Hsu; Wency Chan; Winnie Cheung; Teresa Liu-Ambrose
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?

Authors:  Milad Karimi; John Brazier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People's Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores.

Authors:  Billingsley Kaambwa; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 8.  Health economic benefits from optimized meal services to older adults-a literature-based synthesis.

Authors:  Jørgen Dejgård Jensen
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Test-retest reliability of ICECAP-A in the adult Danish population.

Authors:  Annette Willemoes Holst-Kristensen; Kirsten Fonager; Kjeld Møller Pedersen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  The Effect of a Patient-Provider Educational Intervention to Reduce At-Risk Drinking on Changes in Health and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Older Adults: The Project SHARE Study.

Authors:  Andrew J Barnes; Haiyong Xu; Chi-Hong Tseng; Alfonso Ang; Louise Tallen; Alison A Moore; Deborah C Marshall; Michelle Mirkin; Kurt Ransohoff; O Kenrik Duru; Susan L Ettner
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2015-07-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.