A qualitative exploration of the content and face validity of preference-based measures within the context of dementia.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Caregivers
/ psychology
Dementia
/ classification
Emotions
Female
Focus Groups
Humans
Independent Living
/ psychology
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Preference
Qualitative Research
Quality of Life
/ psychology
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
Dementia
Outcome measurement
Preference-based measures
Proxy
Quality of life
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2020
11 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
02
07
2019
accepted:
28
05
2020
entrez:
13
6
2020
pubmed:
13
6
2020
medline:
12
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with dementia, based on cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, requires that the measures used to derive QALYs are preference-based whilst also being valid, feasible to use, comprehensible and acceptable for people with dementia. The aim of this study was to assess the content and face validity of six preference-based measures (PBMs) within the context of dementia. Qualitative focus groups and interviews were conducted with community-dwelling individuals with mild dementia and carers of people with dementia. After exploring participants' understanding of 'quality of life' (QoL), six PBMs were assessed for content and face validity: two measures assessing health-related QoL (EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D); two covering broader aspects of capability wellbeing and social care-related QoL (ICECAP-O and ASCOT); and two dementia-specific QoL measures (DEMQOL-U and AD-5D). A random mix of one health-related QoL measure, one wellbeing measure, and one dementia-specific measure was explored in each session. All sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically. Nine individuals with mild dementia and 17 carers of people with dementia participated across 4 focus groups and 10 interviews. Participants perceived 9 broad QoL domains as relevant to them: Activity, Autonomy, Cognition, Communication, Coping, Emotions, End-of-Life, Physical Functioning, and Relationships. These domains had limited overlap with the content of the six PBMs. Assessment of face validity was summarized into eight themes: (1) ambiguous questions, (2) double -barrelled questions, (3) difficult/abstract questions, (4) judgemental/confronting questions, (5) lack of relevance and comprehensiveness, (6) response options, (7) layout/format and (8) proxy-response. There was no clear preference for one of the six measures explored; participants identified advantages and disadvantages across all measures. Although particularly designed for individuals with dementia, dementia-specific QoL measures were not always favoured over non-specific measures. Given the shortcomings of PBMs identified in this study, further empirical comparative analyses are necessary to guide the selection of PBMs for future dementia research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with dementia, based on cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, requires that the measures used to derive QALYs are preference-based whilst also being valid, feasible to use, comprehensible and acceptable for people with dementia. The aim of this study was to assess the content and face validity of six preference-based measures (PBMs) within the context of dementia.
METHODS
METHODS
Qualitative focus groups and interviews were conducted with community-dwelling individuals with mild dementia and carers of people with dementia. After exploring participants' understanding of 'quality of life' (QoL), six PBMs were assessed for content and face validity: two measures assessing health-related QoL (EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D); two covering broader aspects of capability wellbeing and social care-related QoL (ICECAP-O and ASCOT); and two dementia-specific QoL measures (DEMQOL-U and AD-5D). A random mix of one health-related QoL measure, one wellbeing measure, and one dementia-specific measure was explored in each session. All sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nine individuals with mild dementia and 17 carers of people with dementia participated across 4 focus groups and 10 interviews. Participants perceived 9 broad QoL domains as relevant to them: Activity, Autonomy, Cognition, Communication, Coping, Emotions, End-of-Life, Physical Functioning, and Relationships. These domains had limited overlap with the content of the six PBMs. Assessment of face validity was summarized into eight themes: (1) ambiguous questions, (2) double -barrelled questions, (3) difficult/abstract questions, (4) judgemental/confronting questions, (5) lack of relevance and comprehensiveness, (6) response options, (7) layout/format and (8) proxy-response. There was no clear preference for one of the six measures explored; participants identified advantages and disadvantages across all measures. Although particularly designed for individuals with dementia, dementia-specific QoL measures were not always favoured over non-specific measures.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Given the shortcomings of PBMs identified in this study, further empirical comparative analyses are necessary to guide the selection of PBMs for future dementia research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32527264
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01425-w
pii: 10.1186/s12955-020-01425-w
pmc: PMC7291594
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
178Subventions
Organisme : Deakin University
ID : WSG17-01
Références
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013 Feb;13(1):109-22
pubmed: 23402451
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Feb;17(5):v-xv, 1-140
pubmed: 23402232
Value Health. 2018 Apr;21(4):471-481
pubmed: 29680105
Value Health. 2012 Mar-Apr;15(2):346-56
pubmed: 22433767
Alzheimers Dement. 2007 Jul;3(3):143-51
pubmed: 19595929
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Apr;62(8):1891-901
pubmed: 16168542
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Apr 21;:
pubmed: 32314315
Qual Life Res. 2002 Feb;11(1):71-9
pubmed: 12003057
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;52(4):293-301
pubmed: 10235169
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Jan 25;15(1):21
pubmed: 28122626
BMJ Open. 2019 May 24;9(5):e028647
pubmed: 31129602
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;33(2):e166-e176
pubmed: 28796303
Med Care. 2005 May;43(5):493-9
pubmed: 15838415
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 06;13:110
pubmed: 24011428
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 29;19(1):201
pubmed: 30922307
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12):e85287
pubmed: 24367708
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019 Oct;24(4):256-265
pubmed: 31378092
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Jun;87:116-22
pubmed: 23631786
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(6):537-41
pubmed: 15960551
Eur J Health Econ. 2015 May;16(4):437-50
pubmed: 24760405
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 21;8(1):e018996
pubmed: 29358437
J Adv Nurs. 2012 Oct;68(10):2237-46
pubmed: 22211637
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1181-1189
pubmed: 29243043
Qual Life Res. 2005 Feb;14(1):107-18
pubmed: 15789945
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014 Feb;12(1):73-84
pubmed: 24254996
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):68-80
pubmed: 25385749
Gerontologist. 1969 Autumn;9(3):179-86
pubmed: 5349366
Dementia (London). 2015 Jan;14(1):114-25
pubmed: 24339093
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Jun 14;5:33
pubmed: 17570832
BMC Neurol. 2009 Aug 25;9:47
pubmed: 19706186
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;19(3):256-65
pubmed: 15027041
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):991-8
pubmed: 23244799
Qual Life Res. 2014 Oct;23(8):2395-404
pubmed: 24719017
J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018 Jan;31(1):e36-e48
pubmed: 27778469
Int Psychogeriatr. 2014 Aug;26(8):1239-46
pubmed: 24565377
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1283-1294
pubmed: 29305782
Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):219-27
pubmed: 12769134
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(10):1-93, iii-iv
pubmed: 15774233
Lancet. 2017 Dec 16;390(10113):e51-e53
pubmed: 28735856
Drugs Aging. 2012 Jan 1;29(1):31-43
pubmed: 22191721
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 May 15;15:201
pubmed: 25976227
Palliat Med. 2016 Jul;30(7):642-52
pubmed: 26819326
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 9;12(1):e0169354
pubmed: 28068375
Value Health. 2019 Jan;22(1):62-68
pubmed: 30661635
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e92016
pubmed: 24632775
Value Health. 2018 Jul;21(7):830-838
pubmed: 30005755
Patient. 2017 Jun;10(3):353-365
pubmed: 28271387
Alzheimers Dement. 2008 May;4(3):203-11
pubmed: 18631969
Aging Ment Health. 2012;16(5):603-7
pubmed: 22360734
Value Health. 2011 Mar-Apr;14(2):390-9
pubmed: 21402307
Alzheimers Dement. 2008 May;4(3):193-202
pubmed: 18631968
Psychol Med. 2007 May;37(5):737-46
pubmed: 17176501
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):795-799
pubmed: 27712707
Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1-166
pubmed: 22459668
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2003 Oct-Dec;17(4):201-8
pubmed: 14657783
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Dec;57(12):2356-7
pubmed: 20169632
J Med Ethics. 1984 Sep;10(3):124-7
pubmed: 6334159
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Sep;67(5):874-82
pubmed: 18572295
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2004 Jul-Aug;39(1):25-33
pubmed: 15158578
Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8):760-71
pubmed: 11468496
Value Health. 2012 Mar-Apr;15(2):323-33
pubmed: 22433764
Qual Life Res. 2009 Nov;18(9):1263-78
pubmed: 19784865