ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Validation of a quality-of-life measure for older people using urgent and emergency care.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Review of the Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with Older People Across Care Settings.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder people (aged 65 years and over) frequently present to urgent or emergency care settings, often with multiple health and social care needs. Despite this, their quality-of-life (QOL) is rarely assessed in a systematic or meaningful way. Capturing QOL in these settings is essential for delivering person-centred care for guiding improvements in service planning and delivery. This study aimed to evaluate the construct validity of the Quality-of-life - Aged Care Consumers, (QOL-ACC), an older people specific QOL instrument, in the context of urgent or emergency care.
methodsData were collected via an online survey which included demographic questions, the QOL-ACC, the EQ-5D-5L (a health-specific measure), the Urgent Care Questionnaire (UCSQ) and global self-reported health and QOL questions. Construct validity was assessed through Convergent and known-group validity. Convergent validity was assessed using 13 a priori hypotheses predicting correlations between the QOL-ACC and its dimensions and the other validated instruments. Known group validity was assessed with four a priori hypotheses comparing QOL-ACC scores across subgroups defined by self-rated health and QOL, areas of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage care needs at home.
resultsAmong 205 respondents (mean age 75 ± 6.0 years, 59% female), 37 (18.0%) were receiving home-based aged care services. The QOL-ACC utility scores demonstrated moderate correlation with the EQ-5D-5L (ρ = 0.60) and the EQVAS (ρ = 0.57). Low to moderate correlation was demonstrated with the 3 dimensions of the UCSQ (ρ = 0.27 ρ = 0.34, ρ = 0.37). The QOL-ACC was able to discriminate between groups with different self-rated health and QOL levels (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed by areas of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage nor by care needs at home.
conclusionsThe QOL-ACC demonstrated strong construct validity for assessing QOL in older people accessing urgent or emergency care. Its ability to distinguish between self-rated health and QOL, with consistent scores across socio-economic groups and care use, supports its broad applicability. Further research is needed to assess its reliability and responsiveness in these settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.