IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v305y2022ics0277953622003525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do we agree or disagree? A systematic review of the application of preference-based instruments in self and proxy reporting of quality of life in older people

Author

Listed:
  • Hutchinson, Claire
  • Worley, Anthea
  • Khadka, Jyoti
  • Milte, Rachel
  • Cleland, Jenny
  • Ratcliffe, Julie

Abstract

Quality of life is an important person-centred outcome in health and aged care settings. Due to an increasing prevalence of cognitive decline and dementia in ageing populations, a proportion of older people receiving health and aged care services may not be able to reliably assess their own quality of life, highlighting the need for proxy assessment. This systematic review sought to investigate the level of agreement between self and proxy-report of older people's quality of life using established preference-based instruments of quality of life suitable for economic evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hutchinson, Claire & Worley, Anthea & Khadka, Jyoti & Milte, Rachel & Cleland, Jenny & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2022. "Do we agree or disagree? A systematic review of the application of preference-based instruments in self and proxy reporting of quality of life in older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:305:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622003525
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622003525
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115046?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. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Keeley, Thomas & Mitchell, Paul & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 116-122.
    2. Khadka, Jyoti & Kwon, Joseph & Petrou, Stavros & Lancsar, Emily & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    3. Anthony Harris & Anurag Sharma, 2018. "Estimating the future health and aged care expenditure in Australia with changes in morbidity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-10, August.
    4. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    5. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    6. Tracy A. Comans & Kim-Huong Nguyen & Julie Ratcliffe & Donna Rowen & Brendan Mulhern, 2020. "Valuing the AD-5D Dementia Utility Instrument: An Estimation of a General Population Tariff," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(8), pages 871-881, August.
    7. Karen A. Roberto & Rosemary Blieszner & Brandy Renee McCann & Marya C. McPherson, 2011. "Family Triad Perceptions of Mild Cognitive Impairment," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 66(6), pages 756-768.
    8. Tanya E. Davison & Vera Camões-Costa & Anna Clark, 2019. "Adjusting to life in a residential aged care facility: Perspectives of people with dementia, family members and facility care staff," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(21-22), pages 3901-3913, November.
    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. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    2. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    3. Helena Hörder & Susanne Gustafsson & Therese Rydberg & Ingmar Skoog & Margda Waern, 2016. "A Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the ICECAP-O: Test–Retest Reliability and Item Relevance in Swedish 70-Year-Olds," Societies, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, September.
    4. Philippe Tessier & Josselin Thuilliez, 2018. "Does freedom make a difference?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1189-1205, November.
    5. Milte, Rachel & Huynh, Elisabeth & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Assessing quality of care in nursing homes using discrete choice experiments: How does the level of cognitive functioning impact upon older people's preferences?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    6. 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).
    7. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    8. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    9. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    10. Kathryn Hale & Truls Østbye & Bilesha Perera & Robert Bradley & Joanna Maselko, 2019. "A Novel Adaptation of the HOME Inventory for Elders: The Importance of the Home Environment Across the Life Course," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Paul Anand & Laurence S. J. Roope & Anthony J. Culyer & Ron Smith, 2020. "Disability and multidimensional quality of life: A capability approach to health status assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(7), pages 748-765, July.
    12. Giulia Greco, 2018. "Setting the Weights: The Women’s Capabilities Index for Malawi," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 457-478, January.
    13. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    14. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    16. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    17. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    18. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    19. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    20. 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.

    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:eee:socmed:v:305:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622003525. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.