IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i7p885-896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Carer Outcomes in an Economic Evaluation: A Content Comparison of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers, Carer Experience Scale, and Care-Related Quality of Life Using Exploratory Factor Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lidia Engel

    (Deakin University, Geelong, Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia)

  • Stacey Rand

    (Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), University of Kent, Canterbury, UK)

  • Renske Hoefman

    (The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague, Netherlands)

  • Jessica Bucholc

    (Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia)

  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos

    (Deakin University, Geelong, Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia)

  • Anne Muldowney

    (Carers Victoria, Footscray, Victoria, Australia)

  • Anna Ugalde

    (Deakin University, Geelong, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia)

  • Nikki McCaffrey

    (Deakin University, Geelong, Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Victoria, Australia)

Abstract

Background. To incorporate the spillover effects experienced by carers providing informal care in health policy decisions, new carer-related preference-based measures have been developed for use in economic evaluation, which include the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer), Carer Experience Scale (CES), and Care-Related Quality of Life (CarerQoL). The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which these 3 instruments measure complementary or overlapping constructs. Methods. Data were derived from an online survey undertaken with carers residing in Australia. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to ascertain the underlying latent constructs of the 3 measures. Results. Data from 351 informal carers yielded a 5-factor model describing general quality of life outside caring, problems due to caring, fulfilment from caring, social support with caring, and relationship with the care recipient. Most of the ASCOT-Carer and the CarerQol items loaded onto the first and second factors, respectively. The greatest overlap was observed between CarerQol and CES items loading onto the other 3 shared common factors. Limitations. Online data collection resulted in inconsistent responses, which had to be removed to yield logical data. A convenience sampling approach may have compromised the generalizability of study findings. Conclusion. Although some overlap was observed, the 3 carer-related preference-based measures seem to tap into different constructs of carer-related quality of life and caring experiences and cannot be used interchangeably.

Suggested Citation

  • Lidia Engel & Stacey Rand & Renske Hoefman & Jessica Bucholc & Cathrine Mihalopoulos & Anne Muldowney & Anna Ugalde & Nikki McCaffrey, 2020. "Measuring Carer Outcomes in an Economic Evaluation: A Content Comparison of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers, Carer Experience Scale, and Care-Related Quality of Life Using Explorator," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(7), pages 885-896, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:7:p:885-896
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20944193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20944193
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20944193?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:7:p:885-896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.