Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32989683›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2021

Developing dimensions for a new preference-based quality of life instrument for older people receiving aged care services in the community.

Jenny Cleland, Claire Hutchinson, Candice McBain, Ruth Walker, Rachel Milte, Jyoti Khadka, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D in populations with a mean age of ≥ 75 years: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Multidisciplinary Allied Health Reablement Model of Care for Older People in Residential Aged Care and Community Settings: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jenny ClelandCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Jenny.cleland@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1722-8015
Claire HutchinsonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4289-8886
Candice McBainJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1277-2211
Ruth WalkerCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5936-1068
Rachel MilteCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7533-6260
Jyoti KhadkaCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1012-2119
Julie RatcliffeCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7365-1988

Funding

Australian Research Council LP170100664
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify the salient quality of life characteristics relevant to older people in receipt of community aged care services in order to develop dimensions for a draft descriptive system for a new preference-based quality of life instrument.

methodsForty-one in-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with older people (65 years and over) receiving community aged care services across three Australian states to explore quality of life characteristics of importance to them. The data were analysed using framework analysis to extract broader themes which were organised into a conceptual framework. The data were then summarised into a thematic chart to develop a framework matrix which was used to interpret and synthesise the data. Care was taken throughout to retain the language that older people had adopted during the interviews to ensure that appropriate language was used when identifying and developing the quality of life dimensions.

resultsThe analysis resulted in the identification of five salient quality of life dimensions: independence, social connections, emotional well-being, mobility, and activities.

conclusionThis research finds that quality of life for older people accessing aged care services goes beyond health-related quality of life and incorporates broader aspects that transcend health. The findings represent the first stage in a multiphase project working in partnership with older people to develop a new preference-based instrument of quality of life for informing quality assessment and economic evaluation in community aged care. In future work, draft items will be developed from these dimensions and tested in face validity interviews before progressing to further psychometric testing.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHomes for the AgedHumansMaleQuality of LifeAged care servicesEconomic evaluationOlder peoplePreference-based instrumentQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID32989683
PMCPMC7886721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.