期刊论文详细信息
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care
Review
Billingsley Kaambwa1  Norma B. Bulamu1  Julie Ratcliffe1 
[1] Flinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, A Block, Repatriation General Hospital, 202-16 Daws Road, 5041, Daw Park, SA, Australia;
关键词: Quality of life;    Older people;    Aged care;    Preference-based instruments;    Economic evaluation;   
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-015-0372-8
 received in 2015-04-07, accepted in 2015-10-22,  发布年份 2015
来源: Springer
PDF
【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThis paper describes the methods and results of a systematic review to identify instruments used to measure quality of life outcomes in older people. The primary focus of the review was to identify instruments suitable for application with older people within economic evaluations conducted in the aged care sector.MethodsOnline databases searched were PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase and Informit. Studies that met the following criteria were included: 1) study population exclusively above 65 years of age 2) measured health status, health related quality of life or quality of life outcomes more broadly through use of an instrument developed for this purpose, 3) used a generic preference based instrument or an older person specific preference based or non-preference based instrument or both, and 4) published in journals in the English language after 2000.ResultsThe most commonly applied generic preference based instrument in both the community and residential aged care context was the EuroQol - 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), followed by the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) and the Health Utilities Index (HUI2/3). The most widely applied older person specific instrument was the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) in both community and residential aged care.ConclusionIn the absence of an ideal instrument for incorporating into economic evaluations in the aged care sector, this review recommends the use of a generic preference based measure of health related quality of life such as the EQ-5D to obtain quality adjusted life years, in combination with an instrument that has a broader quality of life focus like the ASCOT, which was designed specifically for evaluating interventions in social care or the ICECAP-O, a capability measure for older people.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Bulamu et al. 2015

【 预 览 】
附件列表
Files Size Format View
RO202311101311870ZK.pdf 1105KB PDF download
【 参考文献 】
  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23]
  • [24]
  • [25]
  • [26]
  • [27]
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30]
  • [31]
  • [32]
  • [33]
  • [34]
  • [35]
  • [36]
  • [37]
  • [38]
  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]
  • [47]
  • [48]
  • [49]
  • [50]
  • [51]
  • [52]
  • [53]
  • [54]
  • [55]
  • [56]
  • [57]
  • [58]
  • [59]
  • [60]
  • [61]
  • [62]
  • [63]
  • [64]
  • [65]
  • [66]
  • [67]
  • [68]
  • [69]
  • [70]
  • [71]
  • [72]
  • [73]
  • [74]
  • [75]
  • [76]
  • [77]
  • [78]
  • [79]
  • [80]
  • [81]
  • [82]
  • [83]
  • [84]
  • [85]
  • [86]
  • [87]
  • [88]
  • [89]
  • [90]
  • [91]
  • [92]
  • [93]
  • [94]
  • [95]
  • [96]
  • [97]
  • [98]
  • [99]
  • [100]
  • [101]
  • [102]
  • [103]
  • [104]
  • [105]
  • [106]
  • [107]
  • [108]
  • [109]
  • [110]
  • [111]
  • [112]
  • [113]
  • [114]
  • [115]
  • [116]
  • [117]
  • [118]
  • [119]
  • [120]
  • [121]
  • [122]
  • [123]
  • [124]
  • [125]
  • [126]
  • [127]
  • [128]
  • [129]
  • [130]
  • [131]
  • [132]
  • [133]
  • [134]
  • [135]
  • [136]
  • [137]
  • [138]
  • [139]
  • [140]
  • [141]
  • [142]
  • [143]
  • [144]
  • [145]
  • [146]
  • [147]
  • [148]
  • [149]
  • [150]
  • [151]
  • [152]
  • [153]
  • [154]
  • [155]
  • [156]
  • [157]
  • [158]
  • [159]
  • [160]
  • [161]
  • [162]
  • [163]
  • [164]
  • [165]
  • [166]
  • [167]
  • [168]
  • [169]
  • [170]
  • [171]
  • [172]
  • [173]
  • [174]
  • [175]
  • [176]
  • [177]
  • [178]
  • [179]
  • [180]
  • [181]
  • [182]
  • [183]
  • [184]
  • [185]
  • [186]
  • [187]
  • [188]
  • [189]
  • [190]
  • [191]
  • [192]
  • [193]
  • [194]
  • [195]
  • [196]
  文献评价指标  
  下载次数:0次 浏览次数:0次