3.8 Article

Adult carers quality of life questionnaire (AC-QoL): development of an evidence-based tool

期刊

MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW JOURNAL
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 57-+

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/13619321211270380

关键词

Adult carers; Psychometric; Assessment; Positive functioning; Quality of life; Social care; Health services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to develop a new psychometric tool for the assessment of quality of life in adult informal carers. Design/methodology/approach - Two empirical studies are reported. Study 1 describes the psychometric development. An initial pool of 100 items was constructed and completed by 385 carers across the UK contacted through carers' centres. Principal components analysis was then conducted. In study 2, a further 101 carers took part; all completed the scale prior to the intervention and again post-intervention, allowing the authors to test utility as a tool to assess change. Findings - Using principal components analysis with study 1 data the number of items was reduced to 40 that assessed eight domains; support for caring, caring choice, caring stress, financial implications, personal growth, sense of value, ability to care and carer satisfaction. In study 2 it was found that respondents scored higher post-intervention compared to pre-intervention. Research limitations/implications - There are many carers who are not recognised by services. Practical implications - The AC-QoL promises to be a useful addition to the armoury of psychometric tools available for use with adult carers by both practitioners and researchers in health and social care, as well as of use to carers themselves and to policy makers in determining what interventions might be funded and further developed. Originality/value - The paper shows that the AC-QoL is original because of its development from both carers and professional perspectives, breadth of coverage, multi-component structure and focus on both negative and positive outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据