Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGage, H.en
dc.contributor.authorGladman, J.R.F.en
dc.contributor.authorUsman, A.en
dc.contributor.authorLewis, S.en
dc.contributor.authorHinsliff-Smith, K.en
dc.contributor.authorLong, A.en
dc.contributor.authorHousley, G.en
dc.contributor.authorJordan, J.en
dc.contributor.authorGage, H.en
dc.contributor.authorDening, T.en
dc.contributor.authorGordon, A.en
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-13T15:01:38Z
dc.date.available2018-12-13T15:01:38Z
dc.date.issued2018-06-01
dc.identifier.citationUsman, A., Lewis, S., Hinsliff-Smith, K., Long, A., Housley, G., Jordan, J., Gage, H., Dening, T. Gladman, J., Gordon, A. (2018) Measuring health related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses for EQ-5D-5L and HowRu: protocol for assessing proxy reliability in care home outcome testing. BMJ Open. 8(8). pp.1-6.en
dc.identifier.issn0002-0729
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2086/17346
dc.descriptionopen access articleen
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Care home residents are often unable to complete Health Related Quality of Life questionnaires for themselves because of prevalent cognitive impairment. This study compared care home resident and staff proxy responses for two measures, the EQ-5D-5L and HowRU. Methods: A prospective cohort study recruited residents ≥ 60 years across 24 care homes who were not receiving short stay, respite or terminal care. Resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L and HowRu responses were collected monthly for three months. Weighted kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusted for clustering at the care home level were used to measure agreement between resident and proxies for each time point. The effect of staff and resident baseline variables on agreement was considered using a multilevel mixed-effect regression model. Results: 117, 109 and 104 matched pairs completed the questionnaires at 1, 2 and 3 months respectively. When clustering was controlled for, agreement between resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L responses was fair for mobility (ICC: 0.29) and slight for all other domains (ICC  0.20). EQ-5D Index and Quality Adjusted Life Year scores (proxy scores higher than residents) showed better agreement than EQ-5D-VAS (residents scores higher than proxy). HowRU showed only slight agreement (ICC  0.20) between residents and proxies. Staff and resident characteristics did not influence level of agreement for either index.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBMJen
dc.subjectHealth and wellbeingen
dc.subjectolder peopleen
dc.subjectcare home residentsen
dc.subjectEQ-5D-5Len
dc.subjectHowRuen
dc.subjectself-reporten
dc.subjectquality of lifeen
dc.titleMeasuring health related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses for EQ-5D-5L and HowRu: protocol for assessing proxy reliability in care home outcome testingen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022127
dc.peerreviewedYesen
dc.funderDunhill Medical Trusten
dc.projectidFOP1/0115en
dc.cclicenceCC-BY-NCen
dc.date.acceptance2018-06-01en
dc.exception.reason38f. The output was published as ‘gold’ open accessen
dc.researchinstituteInstitute of Health, Health Policy and Social Careen
dc.researchinstituteLocal Governance Research Centre (LGRC)en
dc.researchinstituteCentre for Urban Research on Austerity (CURA)en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record