You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

What's important in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians

Milte, Catherine, Walker, Ruth, Crotty, Maria, Luszcz, Mary, Lancsar, Emily, Kaambwa, Billingsley and Ratcliffe, Julie 2013, What's important in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
milte-whatsimportant-2013.pdf Published version application/pdf 990.37KB 76

Title What's important in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians
Author(s) Milte, CatherineORCID iD for Milte, Catherine orcid.org/0000-0003-0035-6405
Walker, Ruth
Crotty, Maria
Luszcz, Mary
Lancsar, Emily
Kaambwa, Billingsley
Ratcliffe, Julie
Publication date 2013
Total pages 23
Publisher Flinders University
Place of Publication Adelaide, South Australia
Keyword(s) quality of life
ASCOT
OPQOL
health status
older adults
Summary Background
Cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for older adults have traditionally focused on health status. There is increasing recognition of the need to develop new instruments to capture quality of life in a broader sense in the face of age-associated increasing frailty and declining health status, particularly in the economic evaluation of aged and social care interventions which may have positive benefits beyond health. 

Objective
To explore the relative importance of health and broader quality of life domains for defining quality of life from the perspective of older South Australians.

Methods
Older adults (n=21) from a day rehabilitation facility in Southern Adelaide, South Australia attended one of two audiorecorded focus groups. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach was adopted. The study included three main components. Firstly, a general group discussion on quality of life and the factors of importance in defining quality of life. Secondly, a structured ranking exercise in which individuals were asked to rank domains from the brief Older People’s Quality of Life questionnaire (OPQOL-brief) and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in order of importance. Thirdly, participants were asked to self-complete the Euroqol (EQ-5D) a measure of health status, and two broader quality of life measures: the OPQOL-brief and ASCOT.

Results
Mean scores on the EQ-5D, OPQOL-brief and ASCOT were 0.71 (SD 0.20, range 0.06-1.00), 54.6 (SD 5.5, range 38-61) and 0.87 (SD 0.13, range 0.59-1.00) respectively, with higher scores reflecting better ratings of QOL. EQ-5D scores were positively associated with OPQOL-brief (rho: .730, p<.01), but not ASCOT. Approximately half (52.4%) of the respondents ranked either “health” or “psychological and emotional well- being” as the domain most important to their quality of life. However, one-third (33.3%) of the total sample ranked a non-health domain from the ASCOT or OPQOL-brief (safety, dignity, independence) as the most important contributing factor to their overall quality of life. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts supported the high value of both health-related (health, psychological well-being) and social (independence, safety) domains to quality of life.

Conclusions
Older adults value both health and social domains as important to their overall quality of life. Future economic evaluations of health, community and aged-care services for older adults should include assessment of both healthrelated and broader aspects quality of life.
Language eng
Field of Research 111799 Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 920502 Health Related to Ageing
HERDC Research category A6.1 Research report/technical paper
Copyright notice ©2013, The Authors
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059691

Connect to link resolver
 
Link to Related Work
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 136 Abstract Views, 77 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 21 Jan 2014, 14:13:44 EST by Jane Moschetti

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.