Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38816717›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

Reliability of the quality of life-aged care consumers (QOL-ACC) and EQ-5D-5L among older people using aged care services at home.

Jyoti Khadka, Rachel Milte, Claire Hutchinson, Jenny Cleland, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Determining the quality of life-aged care consumer threshold to identify good quality of life in older adults in long-term care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Jyoti KhadkaHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt North, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia. jyoti.khadka@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1012-2119
Rachel MilteHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt North, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7533-6260
Claire HutchinsonHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt North, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4289-8886
Jenny ClelandHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt North, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1722-8015
Julie RatcliffeHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt North, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7365-1988

Funding

Australian Research Council LP170100664
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC), a valid preference-based instrument, has been rolled out in Australia as part of the National Quality Indicator (QI) program since April 2023 to monitor and benchmark the quality of life of aged care recipients. As the QOL-ACC is being used to collect quality of life data longitudinally as one of the key aged care QI indicators, it is imperative to establish the reliability of the QOL-ACC in aged care settings. Therefore, we aimed to assess the reliability of the QOL-ACC and compare its performance with the EQ-5D-5L.

methodsHome care recipients completed a survey including the QOL-ACC, EQ-5D-5L and two global items for health and quality of life at baseline (T1) and 2 weeks later (T2). Using T1 and T2 data, the Gwet's AC2 and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were estimated for the dimension levels and overall scores agreements respectively. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the smallest detectable change (SDC) were also calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for respondents who did not change their response to global item of quality of life and health between T1 and T2.

resultsOf the 83 respondents who completed T1 and T2 surveys, 78 respondents (mean ± SD age, 73.6 ± 5.3 years; 56.4% females) reported either no or one level change in their health and/or quality of life between T1 and T2. Gwet's AC2 ranged from 0.46 to 0.63 for the QOL-ACC dimensions which were comparable to the EQ-5D-5L dimensions (Gwet's AC2 ranged from 0.52 to 0.77). The ICC for the QOL-ACC (0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90) was comparable to the EQ-5D-5L (0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88). The SEM for the QOL-ACC (0.08) was slightly smaller than for the EQ-5D-5L (0.11). The SDC for the QOL-ACC and the EQ-5D-5L for individual subjects were 0.22 and 0.30 respectively. Sensitivity analyses stratified by quality of life and health status confirmed the base case results.

conclusionsThe QOL-ACC demonstrated a good test-retest reliability similar to the EQ-5D-5L, supporting its repeated use in aged care settings. Further studies will provide evidence of responsiveness of the QOL-ACC to aged care-specific interventions in aged care settings.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesQuality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAged careQOL-ACCQuality of CareQuality of lifeReliabilityStandard error of measurementTest–retest

Identifiers

PMID38816717
PMCPMC11140901

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.