IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i6d10.1007_s40258-019-00512-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population

Author

Listed:
  • Jenny Cleland

    (Flinders University)

  • Claire Hutchinson

    (Flinders University)

  • Jyoti Khadka

    (Flinders University
    South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI))

  • Rachel Milte

    (Flinders University)

  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (Flinders University)

Abstract

Older people (aged 65 years and over) are the fastest growing age cohort in the majority of developed countries, and the proportion of individuals defined as the oldest old (aged 80 years and over) living with physical frailty and cognitive impairment is rising. These population changes put increasing pressure on health and aged care services, thus it is important to assess the cost effectiveness of interventions targeted for older people across health and aged care sectors to identify interventions with the strongest capacity to enhance older peoples’ quality of life and provide value for money. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a form of economic evaluation that typically uses preference-based instruments to measure and value health-related quality of life for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) to enable comparisons of the cost effectiveness of different interventions. A variety of generic preference-based instruments have been used to measure older people’s quality of life, including the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT); Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI2); Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3); Short-Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-6 dimensions (AQoL-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-8 dimensions (AQoL-8D); Quality of Wellbeing Scale-Self-Administered (QWB-SA); 15 Dimensions (15D); EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D); and an older person specific preference-based instrument—the Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for older people (ICECAP-O). This article reviews the development and application of these instruments within the older population and discusses the issues surrounding their use with this population. Areas for further research relating to the development and application of generic preference-based instruments with populations of older people are also highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenny Cleland & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe, 2019. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 781-801, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00512-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00512-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00512-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-019-00512-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julie Ratcliffe & Thomas Flint & Tiffany Easton & Maggie Killington & Ian Cameron & Owen Davies & Craig Whitehead & Susan Kurrle & Michelle Miller & Enwu Liu & Maria Crotty, 2017. "An Empirical Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U in a Post-Hospitalisation Population of Frail Older People Living in Residential Aged Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 399-412, June.
    2. Catherine Milte & Ruth Walker & Mary Luszcz & Emily Lancsar & Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "How Important Is Health Status in Defining Quality of Life for Older People? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Older South Australians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 73-84, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalia Perogil-Barragán & Santiago Gomez-Paniagua & Jorge Rojo-Ramos & María José González-Becerra & Sabina Barrios-Fernández & Konstantinos Gianikellis & Antonio Castillo-Paredes & Julián Carvajal-G, 2023. "Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the OPQOL-Brief," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Julie Ratcliffe & Siobhan Bourke & Jinhu Li & Brendan Mulhern & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Emily Lancsar, 2022. "Valuing the Quality-of-Life Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) Instrument for Quality Assessment and Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1069-1079, November.
    3. Himmler, Sebastian & Jonker, Marcel & van Krugten, Frédérique & Hackert, Mariska & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "Estimating an anchored utility tariff for the well-being of older people measure (WOOP) for the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    4. Lidia Engel & Leona Kosowicz & Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Frances Batchelor & Nancy Devlin & Briony Dow & Andrew S. Gilbert & Brendan Mulhern & Tessa Peasgood & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 655-666, November.
    5. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2020. "Well-being of Older People (WOOP): Quantitative validation of a new outcome measure for use in economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    6. Taylor, Kevin & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bessarab, Dawn & Smith, Kate, 2023. "Valuing indigenous quality of life: A review of preference-based quality of life instruments and elicitation techniques with global older indigenous populations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beenish Moalla Chaudhry & Dipanwita Dasgupta & Nitesh V. Chawla, 2022. "Successful Aging for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: An Experimental Study with a Tablet App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-28, October.
    2. Lidia Engel & Leona Kosowicz & Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Frances Batchelor & Nancy Devlin & Briony Dow & Andrew S. Gilbert & Brendan Mulhern & Tessa Peasgood & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 655-666, November.
    3. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    4. Sang-Dol Kim, 2020. "Impacts of Sociodemographic Characteristics and Cardinal Health Problems on Health-Related Quality of Life among Korean Older Adults," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-9, September.
    5. Carmen M Sarabia-Cobo & Paula Parás-Bravo & Francisco José Amo-Setién & Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero & María Sáenz-Jalón & Blanca Torres-Manrique & Raquel Sarabia-Lavín & Angela Fernández-Rodríguez & Ta, 2017. "Validation of the Spanish Version of the ICECAP-O for Nursing Home Residents with Dementia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    7. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    8. Mihaela Ghența & Aniela Matei & Luise Mladen-Macovei & Maria Denisa Vasilescu & Elen-Silvana Bobârnat, 2021. "Sustainable Care and Factors Associated with Quality of Life among Older Beneficiaries of Social Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1235-1244, November.
    10. Lidia Engel & Cate Bailey & Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Frances Batchelor & Nancy Devlin & Briony Dow & Andrew S. Gilbert & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Tessa Peasgood, 2024. "Appropriateness of the EQ-HWB for Use in Residential Aged Care: A Proxy Perspective," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(6), pages 673-683, November.
    11. Julie Ratcliffe & Siobhan Bourke & Jinhu Li & Brendan Mulhern & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Emily Lancsar, 2022. "Valuing the Quality-of-Life Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) Instrument for Quality Assessment and Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1069-1079, November.
    12. Karen M van Leeuwen & Miriam S van Loon & Fenna A van Nes & Judith E Bosmans & Henrica C W de Vet & Johannes C F Ket & Guy A M Widdershoven & Raymond W J G Ostelo, 2019. "What does quality of life mean to older adults? A thematic synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-39, March.
    13. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Management of Dementia Patients - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:41, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    14. Sebastian Himmler & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Happy with Your Capabilities? Valuing ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A States Based on Experienced Utility Using Subjective Well-Being Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 498-510, May.
    15. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Olga Theou & Justin Beilby & Matteo Cesari & Renuka Visvanathan, 2019. "Structuring a conceptual model for cost-effectiveness analysis of frailty interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.
    16. Iranzu Mugueta-Aguinaga & Begonya Garcia-Zapirain, 2019. "Frailty Level Monitoring and Analysis after a Pilot Six-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Using the FRED Exergame Including Biofeedback Supervision in an Elderly Day Care Centre," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, February.
    17. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00512-4. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.