Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (May 2024)

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

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02257-8
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Purpose The 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. Methods Home 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. Results Of 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. Conclusions The 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.

Keywords