Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL

Contents:

Author Info

  • Richard Holland

    (School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

  • Richard D Smith

    (School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

  • Ian Harvey

    (School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

  • Louise Swift

    (School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

  • Elizabeth Lenaghan

    (School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    As more research is undertaken on the elderly, accurately assessing changes in their quality of life becomes increasingly important. Generic instruments are the most popular method to assess quality of life, and one of the most widely used is the EQ-5D. However, the range of dimensions, sensitivity of scales and completion rates have been raised as concerns when using this measure with the elderly. The AQoL is a newer instrument which offers greater richness in dimensions of health covered, and potentially offers greater sensitivity to changes in quality of life. This paper presents the results of a 'head-to-head' comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL in terms of practicality, construct validity, agreement (of absolute scores and their change over time) and sensitivity to change, as part of a randomised controlled trial in the elderly. Poor agreement was found between both the absolute scores from each instrument and change in scores over time. Although the AQoL appeared to have more favourable construct validity, the EQ-5D was easier to administer, had a higher completion rate, and appeared more sensitive to change. We conclude that the AQoL is probably less well suited to measuring health status in a very elderly population than the EQ-5D. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.858
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 13 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 8 ()
    Pages: 793-805

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:8:p:793-805

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    2. van Agt, Heleen M. E. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1994. "Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1537-1544, December.
    3. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    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 in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Mulhern, B & Smith, SC & Rowen, D & Brazier, JE & Knapp, M & Lamping, DL & Loftus, V & Young, Tracey A. & Howard, RJ & Banerjee, S, 2010. "Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis," MPRA Paper 29948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    3. Susan T. Stewart & Rebecca M. Woodward & Allison B. Rosen & David M. Cutler, 2005. "A Proposed Method for Monitoring U.S. Population Health: Linking Symptoms, Impairments, and Health Ratings," NBER Working Papers 11358, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:8:p:793-805. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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