IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0173081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the construct and known-group validity of a composite endpoint for The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum Data Set (TOPICS-MDS); A large-scale data sharing initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia S Hofman
  • Jennifer E Lutomski
  • Han Boter
  • Bianca M Buurman
  • Anton J M de Craen
  • Rogier Donders
  • Marcel G M Olde Rikkert
  • Peter Makai
  • René J F Melis
  • TOPICS-MDS research consortium

Abstract

Background: Preference-weighted multi-faceted endpoints have the potential to facilitate comparative effectiveness research that incorporates patient preferences. The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey—Composite endpoint (TOPICS-CEP) is potentially a valuable outcome measure for evaluating interventions in geriatric care as it combines multiple outcomes relevant to older persons in a single metric. The objective of this study was to validate TOPICS-CEP across different study settings (general population, primary care and hospital). Methods: Data were extracted from TOPICS Minimum Dataset (MDS), a pooled public-access national database with information on older persons throughout the Netherlands. Data of 17,603 older persons were used. Meta-correlations were performed between TOPICS-CEP indexed scores, EuroQol5-D utility scores and Cantril’s ladder life satisfaction scores. Mixed linear regression analyses were performed to compare TOPICS-CEP indexed scores between known groups, e.g. persons with versus without depression. Results: In the complete sample and when stratified by study setting TOPICS-CEP and Cantril’s ladder were moderately correlated, whereas TOPICS-CEP and EQ-5D were highly correlated. Higher mean TOPICS-CEP scores were found in persons who were: married, lived independently and had an education at university level. Moreover, higher mean TOPICS-CEP scores were found in persons without dementia, depression, and dizziness with falls, respectively. Similar results were found when stratified by subgroup. Conclusion: This study supports that TOPICS-CEP is a robust measure which can potentially be used in broad settings to identify the effect of intervention or of prevention in elderly care.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia S Hofman & Jennifer E Lutomski & Han Boter & Bianca M Buurman & Anton J M de Craen & Rogier Donders & Marcel G M Olde Rikkert & Peter Makai & René J F Melis & TOPICS-MDS research consortium, 2017. "Examining the construct and known-group validity of a composite endpoint for The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum Data Set (TOPICS-MDS); A large-scale data sharing initiative," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173081
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173081
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173081&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0173081?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0173081. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.