4.4 Article

EQ-5D rated by proxy in institutionalized older adults with dementia: Psychometric pros and cons

期刊

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 346-353

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ggi.12108

关键词

dementia; EQ-5D questionnaire; nursing homes; psychometric properties; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimMeasurement of health-related quality of life in people with dementia is a challenge, because of their special characteristics and the difficulties that this term entails itself. The present study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D rated by a familiar or a professional caregiver of institutionalized older adults with dementia. MethodsWe analyzed the EQ-5D psychometric properties from 525 questionnaires rated by proxy, in a sample of institutionalized older adults with dementia. ResultsThe mean EQ-5D index score was 0.110.38, and 51.54 +/- 21.47 for the visual analog scale. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.72. Regarding internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was 0.64, and the item-total correlation ranged from 0.33 to 0.53. Exploratory factor analysis identified a functional and a subjective factor, accounting for 67.35% of the variance. Convergent validity of EQ-5D with Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease by proxy and Quality of Life in Late-stage Dementia scales was satisfactory (r=0.36-0.58). The EQ-5D showed appropriate discriminative validity among patients grouped into several categories. Multiple linear regression models, using EQ-index and visual analog scale as dependent variables, identified dependence level, proxy characteristics, leisure and comorbidity as determinants of quality of life. ConclusionsDespite some limitations in the more subjective dimensions, the proxy-rated EQ-5D showed satisfactory psychometric properties in the present study, suggesting that it is a valid and alternative instrument to assess quality of life in institutionalized older people with dementia. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2014; 14: 346-353.

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

4.4
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