IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v21y2012i11-12p1632-1640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing quality of life of older people with dementia in long‐term care: a comparison of two self‐report measures

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy Moyle
  • Natalie Gracia
  • Jenny E Murfield
  • Susan G Griffiths
  • Lorraine Venturato

Abstract

Aims and objectives. This study sought to compare two well‐known and well‐used self‐report quality of life questionnaires in terms of completion rates, reliability and assessment of quality of life. Background. People with dementia have a meaningful experience of quality of life and several disease‐specific instruments have been designed to capture self‐report assessments. Design. A quantitative survey design, with a convenience sample of older people with dementia from four long‐term care facilities. Method. Sixty‐one participants were recruited for survey on the Dementia Quality of Life questionnaire and the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease questionnaire. Results. The Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease questionnaire had a higher rate of completion (98·4%) than the Dementia Quality of Life questionnaire (68·9%). Those unable to complete the latter measure had significantly greater cognitive impairment (F1,59 = 30·35, p

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy Moyle & Natalie Gracia & Jenny E Murfield & Susan G Griffiths & Lorraine Venturato, 2012. "Assessing quality of life of older people with dementia in long‐term care: a comparison of two self‐report measures," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(11‐12), pages 1632-1640, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:11-12:p:1632-1640
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03688.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03688.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03688.x?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:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:11-12:p:1632-1640. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.