What Aspects of Quality of Life are Important from Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives? A Framework Analysis to Inform Preference-Based Measures for Palliative and End-of-Life Settings.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nikki McCaffrey, Julie Ratcliffe, David Currow, Lidia Engel, Claire Hutchinson
{"title":"What Aspects of Quality of Life are Important from Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives? A Framework Analysis to Inform Preference-Based Measures for Palliative and End-of-Life Settings.","authors":"Nikki McCaffrey, Julie Ratcliffe, David Currow, Lidia Engel, Claire Hutchinson","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00651-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Preference-based outcome measures are commonly applied in economic analyses to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. Few preference-based outcome measures have been specifically developed for palliative and end-of-life settings. This study aimed to identify which quality-of-life domains are most important to Australians receiving specialised palliative care services to help determine if the development of a new condition-specific preference-based outcome measure is warranted.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 18 participants recruited from palliative care services in South Australia. Data were analysed using a framework analysis drawing on findings from a systematic review of international qualitative studies investigating the quality-of-life preferences of patients receiving palliation (domains identified included cognitive, emotional, healthcare, personal autonomy, physical, preparatory, social, spiritual). Participants identified missing or irrelevant domains in the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D questionnaires and ranked the importance of domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A priori domains were refined into cognitive, environmental, financial, independence, physical, psychological, social and spiritual. The confirmation of the eight important quality-of-life domains across multiple international studies suggests there is a relatively high degree of convergence on the perspectives of patients in different countries. Four domains derived from the interviews are not covered by the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D (cognitive, environmental, financial, spiritual), including one of the most important (spiritual).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing, popular, preference-based outcome measures such as the EQ-5D do not incorporate the most important, patient-valued, quality-of-life domains in the palliative and end-of-life settings. Development of a new, more relevant and comprehensive preference-based outcome measure could improve the allocation of resources to patient-valued services and have wide applicability internationally.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00651-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Preference-based outcome measures are commonly applied in economic analyses to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. Few preference-based outcome measures have been specifically developed for palliative and end-of-life settings. This study aimed to identify which quality-of-life domains are most important to Australians receiving specialised palliative care services to help determine if the development of a new condition-specific preference-based outcome measure is warranted.

Methods: In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 18 participants recruited from palliative care services in South Australia. Data were analysed using a framework analysis drawing on findings from a systematic review of international qualitative studies investigating the quality-of-life preferences of patients receiving palliation (domains identified included cognitive, emotional, healthcare, personal autonomy, physical, preparatory, social, spiritual). Participants identified missing or irrelevant domains in the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D questionnaires and ranked the importance of domains.

Results: A priori domains were refined into cognitive, environmental, financial, independence, physical, psychological, social and spiritual. The confirmation of the eight important quality-of-life domains across multiple international studies suggests there is a relatively high degree of convergence on the perspectives of patients in different countries. Four domains derived from the interviews are not covered by the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D (cognitive, environmental, financial, spiritual), including one of the most important (spiritual).

Conclusions: Existing, popular, preference-based outcome measures such as the EQ-5D do not incorporate the most important, patient-valued, quality-of-life domains in the palliative and end-of-life settings. Development of a new, more relevant and comprehensive preference-based outcome measure could improve the allocation of resources to patient-valued services and have wide applicability internationally.

从姑息治疗患者的角度来看,生活质量的哪些方面是重要的?为姑息治疗和临终设置提供基于偏好措施的框架分析。
背景和目的:基于偏好的结果测量通常应用于经济分析,为医疗资源分配决策提供信息。很少有基于偏好的结果测量方法专门用于姑息治疗和临终治疗。本研究旨在确定哪些生活质量领域对接受专门姑息治疗服务的澳大利亚人来说是最重要的,以帮助确定是否有必要开发一种新的针对特定情况的基于偏好的结果测量方法。方法:对来自南澳大利亚州姑息治疗服务机构的18名参与者进行深入的面对面访谈。数据分析采用框架分析,根据国际定性研究的系统审查结果进行分析,调查接受姑息治疗的患者的生活质量偏好(确定的领域包括认知、情感、医疗保健、个人自主、身体、准备、社会、精神)。参与者在EQ-5D和QLU-C10D问卷中确定缺失或不相关的领域,并对领域的重要性进行排名。结果:将先验领域细化为认知、环境、财务、独立、身体、心理、社会和精神领域。多个国际研究对八个重要生活质量领域的确认表明,不同国家患者的观点存在相对高度的趋同。EQ-5D和eq - c10d没有涵盖从访谈中得出的四个领域(认知、环境、财务、精神),其中包括最重要的一个领域(精神)。结论:现有的、流行的、基于偏好的结果测量方法,如EQ-5D,并没有在姑息治疗和临终环境中纳入最重要的、患者最重视的生活质量领域。开发一种新的、更相关的和全面的基于偏好的结果衡量方法,可以改善对病人有价值的服务的资源分配,并在国际上具有广泛的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信