Quality of Life in Older People: A Structured Review of Generic Self-Assessed Health Instruments

Objective: To review evidence relating to the measurement properties of multi-item generic patient or self-assessed measures of health in older people. Methods: Systematic literature searches to identify instruments. Pre-defined criteria relating to reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results:...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Quality of life research 2005-09, Vol.14 (7), p.1651-1668
Main Authors: K. L. Haywood, A. M. Garratt, Fitzpatrick, R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age Factors
Aged
Community power
Empirical evidence
Health outcomes
Health status
Health Status Indicators
Health surveys
Humans
Mathematical functions
Mental health
Older adults
Older people
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Self Concept
Studies
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: To review evidence relating to the measurement properties of multi-item generic patient or self-assessed measures of health in older people. Methods: Systematic literature searches to identify instruments. Pre-defined criteria relating to reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results: 122 articles relating to 15 instruments met the inclusion criteria. The most extensive evidence was found for the SF-36, COOP Charts, EQ-5D, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and SIP. Four instruments have evidence of both internal consistency and test-retest reliability - NHP, SF-12, SF-20, SF-36. Four instruments lack evidence of reliability - HSQ-12, IHQL, QWB, SQL. Most instruments were assessed for validity through comparisons with other instruments, global judgements of health, or clinical and socio-demographic variables. Five instruments lack evidence of responsiveness - GQL, HSQ-12, IHQL, QLI and QWB. Conclusion: There is good evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness for the SF-36, EQ-5D and NHP. There is more limited evidence for the COOP, SF-12 and SIP. The SF-36 is recommended where a detailed and broad ranging assessment of health is required, particularly in community dwelling older people with limited morbidity. The EQ-5D is recommended where a more succinct assessment is required, particularly where a substantial change in health is expected. Instrument content should be assessed for relevance before application. The concurrent evaluation of generic instruments in older people is recommended.
ISSN:0962-9343
1573-2649
DOI:10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0