Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Assessing the relative importance of key quality of life dimensions for people with and without a disability: an empirical ranking comparison study

Authors: Matthew Crocker, Claire Hutchinson, Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa, Ruth Walker, Gang Chen, Julie Ratcliffe

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In economic evaluation, the quality of life of people with a disability has traditionally been assessed using preference-based instruments designed to measure and value quality of life. To provide robust measurement of the effectiveness of programs designed to improve the quality of life of people living with a disability, preference-based measures need to be sufficiently sensitive to detect incremental changes in the quality of life dimensions that are most important to people who have a disability. This study sought to explore whether there was a difference in the ranked order of importance of quality of life dimensions between people with a disability and people without a disability.

Methods

An online survey was developed and administered Australia wide. The first sample (n = 410) comprised adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with a disability (n = 208) and family carers of person/s with a disability who were asked to respond on behalf of the person with a disability (n = 202). The second sample included adults without disability (n = 443). Respondents were asked to rank the importance of 12 quality of life dimensions extracted from the content of established preference-based quality of life measures (EQ-5D, AQoL and ASCOT).

Results

People with a disability placed relatively higher importance on broader quality of life dimensions (e.g. Control, Independence, Self-care) relative to health status focused dimensions (e.g. Vision, Hearing, Physical mobility). This distinction was less differentiable for those ‘without a disability’. The biggest differences in ranked importance of dimensions were in: Vision (‘with disability’ = 10th, ‘without disability’ = 4th), Self-care (‘with disability’ = 3rd, ‘without disability’ = 7th) and Mental well-being (‘with disability’ = 6th, ‘without disability’ = 2nd).

Conclusions

The relative importance of quality of life dimensions for people with a disability differs to people without a disability. Quality of life is a key outcome for economic evaluation and for assessing the impact of disability care policy and practice in Australia and internationally. It is important that the effectiveness of interventions is measured and valued in ways which are fully reflective of the quality of life preferences of people with a disability.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
4.
go back to reference Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.CrossRef Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Pequeno NP, de Araújo Cabral NL, Marchioni DM, Lima SC, de Oliveira Lyra C. Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–13.CrossRef Pequeno NP, de Araújo Cabral NL, Marchioni DM, Lima SC, de Oliveira Lyra C. Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–13.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers AM, Brazier J, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2012;16(16):1–165. Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers AM, Brazier J, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2012;16(16):1–165.
7.
go back to reference Flynn TN, Chan P, Coast J, Peters TJ. Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(5):317–29.CrossRef Flynn TN, Chan P, Coast J, Peters TJ. Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(5):317–29.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Carlton J, Connell J, Devlin N, Jones K, et al. What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB? Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22:1067–81.CrossRef Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Carlton J, Connell J, Devlin N, Jones K, et al. What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB? Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22:1067–81.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2021: monitoring health for the SDGs. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2021: monitoring health for the SDGs. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
12.
go back to reference Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1891–901.CrossRef Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1891–901.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Lancsar E, Miller M, Crotty M. Cognitive overload? An exploration of the potential impact of cognitive functioning in discrete choice experiments with older people in health care. Value Health. 2014;17(5):655–9.CrossRef Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Lancsar E, Miller M, Crotty M. Cognitive overload? An exploration of the potential impact of cognitive functioning in discrete choice experiments with older people in health care. Value Health. 2014;17(5):655–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J, Lancsar E, Flint T, Kaambwa B, Walker R, Lewin G, et al. Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(2):299–309.CrossRef Ratcliffe J, Lancsar E, Flint T, Kaambwa B, Walker R, Lewin G, et al. Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(2):299–309.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Claes C, Vandevelde S, Van HG, van Loon J, Verschelden G, Schalock R. Relationship between self-report and proxy ratings on assessed personal quality of life-related outcomes. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2012;9(3):159–65.CrossRef Claes C, Vandevelde S, Van HG, van Loon J, Verschelden G, Schalock R. Relationship between self-report and proxy ratings on assessed personal quality of life-related outcomes. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2012;9(3):159–65.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Scott HM, Havercamp SM. Comparisons of self and proxy report on health-related factors in people with intellectual disability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):927–36.CrossRef Scott HM, Havercamp SM. Comparisons of self and proxy report on health-related factors in people with intellectual disability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):927–36.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference de Geus-Neelen KCJM, van Oorsouw WMWJ, Hendriks LAHC, Embregts PJCM. Perceptions of staff and family of the quality of life of people with severe to profound intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;44(1):42–50.CrossRef de Geus-Neelen KCJM, van Oorsouw WMWJ, Hendriks LAHC, Embregts PJCM. Perceptions of staff and family of the quality of life of people with severe to profound intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;44(1):42–50.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Pink B. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Technical paper 2006. 2008. Pink B. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Technical paper 2006. 2008.
21.
go back to reference Bulmer M. Principles of statistics. 2nd ed. London: Oliver & Boyd; 1967. Bulmer M. Principles of statistics. 2nd ed. London: Oliver & Boyd; 1967.
22.
go back to reference Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.CrossRef Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hensel E, Rose J, Stenfert Kroese B, Banks-Smith J. Subjective judgements of quality of life: a comparison study between people with intellectual disability and those without disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2002;46(2):95–107.CrossRef Hensel E, Rose J, Stenfert Kroese B, Banks-Smith J. Subjective judgements of quality of life: a comparison study between people with intellectual disability and those without disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2002;46(2):95–107.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Townsend-White C, Pham ANT, Vassos MV. Review: A systematic review of quality of life measures for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviours. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2012;56(3):270–84.CrossRef Townsend-White C, Pham ANT, Vassos MV. Review: A systematic review of quality of life measures for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviours. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2012;56(3):270–84.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Bray N, Spencer LH, Edwards RT. Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in congenital mobility impairment: a systematic review of validity and responsiveness. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10(1):1–38.CrossRef Bray N, Spencer LH, Edwards RT. Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in congenital mobility impairment: a systematic review of validity and responsiveness. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10(1):1–38.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Rand S, Towers A-M, Razik K, Turnpenny A, Bradshaw J, Caiels J, et al. Feasibility, factor structure and construct validity of the easy-read Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT-ER)*. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2019;45(2):119–32.CrossRef Rand S, Towers A-M, Razik K, Turnpenny A, Bradshaw J, Caiels J, et al. Feasibility, factor structure and construct validity of the easy-read Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT-ER)*. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2019;45(2):119–32.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Todorov A, Kirchner C. Bias in proxies’ reports of disability: data from the National Health Interview Survey on disability. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(8):1248–53.CrossRef Todorov A, Kirchner C. Bias in proxies’ reports of disability: data from the National Health Interview Survey on disability. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(8):1248–53.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Li M, Harris I, Lu ZK. Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):1–10.CrossRef Li M, Harris I, Lu ZK. Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):1–10.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Khadka J, Kwon J, Petrou S, Lancsar E, Ratcliffe J. Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240:112543.CrossRef Khadka J, Kwon J, Petrou S, Lancsar E, Ratcliffe J. Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240:112543.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Commonwealth of Australia. Portfolio budget statements 2021–22 Budget Related Paper No. 1. 12 Social Services Portfolio. 2021. Commonwealth of Australia. Portfolio budget statements 2021–22 Budget Related Paper No. 1. 12 Social Services Portfolio. 2021.
Metadata
Title
Assessing the relative importance of key quality of life dimensions for people with and without a disability: an empirical ranking comparison study
Authors
Matthew Crocker
Claire Hutchinson
Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa
Ruth Walker
Gang Chen
Julie Ratcliffe
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01901-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2021 Go to the issue