IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i6d10.1007_s40271-024-00715-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appropriateness of the EQ-HWB for Use in Residential Aged Care: A Proxy Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Lidia Engel

    (Monash University
    National Ageing Research Institute)

  • Cate Bailey

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Ekaterina Bogatyreva

    (Deakin University)

  • Frances Batchelor

    (National Ageing Research Institute
    University of Melbourne
    University of Melbourne)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Briony Dow

    (National Ageing Research Institute
    University of Melbourne
    Deakin University)

  • Andrew S. Gilbert

    (National Ageing Research Institute
    La Trobe University)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Tessa Peasgood

    (University of Melbourne
    University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background and Objective The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new generic quality-of-life measure for use in evaluating interventions in health, public health and social care. This study aimed to explore proxies’ views regarding the appropriateness of the EQ-HWB for measuring residents’ quality of life living in residential aged care facilities. Methods Qualitative think-aloud and semi-structured interviews were conducted with family members and aged care staff across three facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Proxies completed the 25-item EQ-HWB proxy version 2 (i.e. proxy-person perspective) whilst talking through the reasons for choosing their response. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Results The sample included 29 proxies; nine family members and 20 aged care staff. The first theme summarised proxies’ ability to proxy report residents’ health and well-being using the EQ-HWB, which highlighted challenges with adherence to the proxy perspective, proxies’ limited knowledge about residents, disagreement with residents’ self-evaluation and use of heuristics. The second theme reflected feedback on the suitability of the EQ-HWB for use in residential aged care. Although proxies perceived that the EQ-HWB covered important domains, there were concerns about ambiguity, inappropriate examples, double-barrelled items and perceived repetition. Suggestions were made to improve the response options, comprehensiveness, recall period, layout and instructions of the questionnaire. Conclusions While the EQ-HWB captures domains relevant to residential aged care, modifications to item wording and examples are necessary to improve its appropriateness. Use of the proxy-person perspective revealed some challenges that require further consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00715-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00715-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00715-5
    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/s40271-024-00715-5?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. 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)

    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. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00715-5. 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.