Abstract
Background: To maintain good standards of care, evaluations of policy interventions or potential improvements to care are required. A number of quality of life (QoL) measures could be used but there is little evidence for England as to which measures would be appropriate. Using data from a pilot Minimum Data Set (MDS) for care home residents from the Developing resources And minimum dataset for Care Homes’ Adoption (DACHA) study, we assessed the discriminant construct validity of QoL measures, using hypothesis testing to assess the factors associated with QoL.
Methods: Care home records for 679 residents aged over 65 from 34 care homes were available that had been linked to health records and care home provider data. In addition to data on demographics, level of needs and impairment, proxy report social care-, capability- and health-related QoL of participants were completed (ASCOT-Proxy-Resident, ICECAP-O, EQ-5D-5L Proxy 2). Discriminant construct validity was assessed through testing hypotheses developed from previous research and QoL measure constructs. Multilevel regression models were analysed to understand how QoL was influenced by personal characteristics (e.g. sex, levels of functional and cognitive ability), care home level factors (type of home, level of quality) and resident use of health services (potentially avoidable emergency hospital admissions). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data.
Results: All three QoL measures had acceptable construct validity and captured different aspects of QoL, indicated by different factors explaining variation in each measure. All three measures were negatively associated with levels of cognitive impairment, whilst ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L Proxy 2 were negatively associated with low levels of functional ability. ASCOT-Proxy-Resident was positively associated with aspects of quality and care effectiveness at both resident- and care home-level.
Conclusion: The study found acceptable construct validity for ASCOT-Proxy-Resident, ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L Proxy 2 in care homes, with findings suggesting the three are complementary measures based on different constructs. The study has also provided evidence to support the inclusion of these QoL measures in any future MDS.
Methods: Care home records for 679 residents aged over 65 from 34 care homes were available that had been linked to health records and care home provider data. In addition to data on demographics, level of needs and impairment, proxy report social care-, capability- and health-related QoL of participants were completed (ASCOT-Proxy-Resident, ICECAP-O, EQ-5D-5L Proxy 2). Discriminant construct validity was assessed through testing hypotheses developed from previous research and QoL measure constructs. Multilevel regression models were analysed to understand how QoL was influenced by personal characteristics (e.g. sex, levels of functional and cognitive ability), care home level factors (type of home, level of quality) and resident use of health services (potentially avoidable emergency hospital admissions). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data.
Results: All three QoL measures had acceptable construct validity and captured different aspects of QoL, indicated by different factors explaining variation in each measure. All three measures were negatively associated with levels of cognitive impairment, whilst ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L Proxy 2 were negatively associated with low levels of functional ability. ASCOT-Proxy-Resident was positively associated with aspects of quality and care effectiveness at both resident- and care home-level.
Conclusion: The study found acceptable construct validity for ASCOT-Proxy-Resident, ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L Proxy 2 in care homes, with findings suggesting the three are complementary measures based on different constructs. The study has also provided evidence to support the inclusion of these QoL measures in any future MDS.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 33 |
Pages (from-to) | 1-12 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Journal | Health and Quality of Life Outcomes |
Volume | 23 |
Early online date | 5 Apr 2025 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 5 Apr 2025 |