Through Their Eyes: Defining 'good life' in dementia for health economics and outcomes research.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Irina Kinchin, Erin Boland, Iracema Leroi, Joanna Coast
{"title":"Through Their Eyes: Defining 'good life' in dementia for health economics and outcomes research.","authors":"Irina Kinchin, Erin Boland, Iracema Leroi, Joanna Coast","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite progress in involving people living with dementia in health research, disparities remain, particularly in the field of health economics and outcomes research, where excessive reliance on proxy reports from care partners or healthcare professionals persists even when people are capable of self-reporting, leading to inequitable inclusion. This study aimed to understand the concept of a 'good life' from the perspectives of people living with dementia and examine how well current preference-based outcome measures used in health economics and outcomes research capture these perspectives. Twenty-three community-dwelling people with mild to moderate dementia in Ireland participated in in-depth interviews (September 2022-February 2023). Data were analysed using an adapted Colaizzi's seven-step phenomenological method, followed by mapping identified themes against ten commonly used preference-based outcome measures in dementia research. Results show that participants perceive a 'good life' through independence, social connections, engagement with life, adaptation to changing abilities. As dementia progresses, perceptions shift from striving for independence and active life engagement to accepting assistance and increased social support. This transition reflects a journey of adaptation, where participants redefine their sense of a 'good life' with evolving challenges and capabilities. The mapping analysis reveal that current preference-based outcome measures vary considerably in their coverage of these themes (33-83%), with none fully capturing the dynamic and evolving nature of a 'good life' as described by participants. These findings expose disparities between lived experiences and current measurement frameworks in health economics and outcomes research in dementia, calling for developing flexible and adaptive approaches to quality of life assessment in progressive conditions-approaches that not only reflect quality of life as defined by those living with the condition but also accommodate its dynamic and evolving nature throughout individual disease trajectories.</p>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"366 ","pages":"117716"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117716","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite progress in involving people living with dementia in health research, disparities remain, particularly in the field of health economics and outcomes research, where excessive reliance on proxy reports from care partners or healthcare professionals persists even when people are capable of self-reporting, leading to inequitable inclusion. This study aimed to understand the concept of a 'good life' from the perspectives of people living with dementia and examine how well current preference-based outcome measures used in health economics and outcomes research capture these perspectives. Twenty-three community-dwelling people with mild to moderate dementia in Ireland participated in in-depth interviews (September 2022-February 2023). Data were analysed using an adapted Colaizzi's seven-step phenomenological method, followed by mapping identified themes against ten commonly used preference-based outcome measures in dementia research. Results show that participants perceive a 'good life' through independence, social connections, engagement with life, adaptation to changing abilities. As dementia progresses, perceptions shift from striving for independence and active life engagement to accepting assistance and increased social support. This transition reflects a journey of adaptation, where participants redefine their sense of a 'good life' with evolving challenges and capabilities. The mapping analysis reveal that current preference-based outcome measures vary considerably in their coverage of these themes (33-83%), with none fully capturing the dynamic and evolving nature of a 'good life' as described by participants. These findings expose disparities between lived experiences and current measurement frameworks in health economics and outcomes research in dementia, calling for developing flexible and adaptive approaches to quality of life assessment in progressive conditions-approaches that not only reflect quality of life as defined by those living with the condition but also accommodate its dynamic and evolving nature throughout individual disease trajectories.

通过他们的眼睛:为健康经济学和结果研究定义痴呆症中的“美好生活”。
尽管在让痴呆症患者参与卫生研究方面取得了进展,但差距仍然存在,特别是在卫生经济学和结果研究领域,即使人们能够自我报告,也仍然过度依赖护理伙伴或卫生保健专业人员的代理报告,导致不公平的纳入。本研究旨在从痴呆症患者的角度理解“美好生活”的概念,并检查目前在卫生经济学和结果研究中使用的基于偏好的结果测量方法在多大程度上捕捉到了这些观点。爱尔兰23名轻度至中度痴呆症社区居民参与了深度访谈(2022年9月至2023年2月)。使用Colaizzi的七步现象学方法对数据进行了分析,随后将确定的主题与痴呆研究中常用的基于偏好的结果测量相对应。结果显示,参与者通过独立、社会联系、参与生活、适应能力变化来感知“美好生活”。随着痴呆症的发展,人们的观念从争取独立和积极参与生活转变为接受援助和增加社会支持。这一转变反映了一段适应之旅,参与者通过不断变化的挑战和能力重新定义了他们对“美好生活”的理解。地图分析显示,目前基于偏好的结果测量方法对这些主题的覆盖范围差异很大(33-83%),没有一个能完全捕捉到参与者所描述的“美好生活”的动态和演变性质。这些发现揭示了痴呆症健康经济学和结果研究中生活经验和当前测量框架之间的差异,呼吁开发灵活和适应性的方法来评估进步性条件下的生活质量-这些方法不仅反映了生活在条件下的人所定义的生活质量,而且还适应其在个体疾病轨迹中的动态和进化性质。
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
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
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