Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care

Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Khadka, J [verfasserIn] Hutchinson, C Milte, R Cleland, J Muller, A Bowes, N Ratcliffe, J

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Quality of Life Preference-based measure Aged care Residential aged care Quality of care

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Health and quality of life outcomes - London : BioMed Central, 2003, 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:20 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:01 ; month:12

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y

Katalog-ID:	SPR05119502X

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR05119502X
003	DE-627
005	20230509121705.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230508s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR05119502X
035			\|a (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Khadka, J \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2022
520			\|a Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings.
650		4	\|a Quality of Life \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Preference-based measure \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Aged care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Residential aged care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Quality of care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Hutchinson, C \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Milte, R \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Cleland, J \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Muller, A \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Bowes, N \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ratcliffe, J \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Health and quality of life outcomes \|d London : BioMed Central, 2003 \|g 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. \|w (DE-627)360059651 \|w (DE-600)2098765-1 \|x 1477-7525 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:20 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g day:01 \|g month:12
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_375
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 20 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|b 01 \|c 12

Indexfelder

author_variant	j k jk c h ch r m rm j c jc a m am n b nb j r jr
matchkey_str	article:14777525:2022----::sesnfaiiiyosrcvldtadeibltoaeaecrseiipeeecbsdultolfisrmneiecf
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y doi (DE-627)SPR05119502X (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Khadka, J verfasserin aut Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. Quality of Life (dpeaa)DE-He213 Preference-based measure (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residential aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Quality of care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hutchinson, C aut Milte, R aut Cleland, J aut Muller, A aut Bowes, N aut Ratcliffe, J aut Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes London : BioMed Central, 2003 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. (DE-627)360059651 (DE-600)2098765-1 1477-7525 nnns volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 20 2022 1 01 12
spelling	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y doi (DE-627)SPR05119502X (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Khadka, J verfasserin aut Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. Quality of Life (dpeaa)DE-He213 Preference-based measure (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residential aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Quality of care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hutchinson, C aut Milte, R aut Cleland, J aut Muller, A aut Bowes, N aut Ratcliffe, J aut Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes London : BioMed Central, 2003 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. (DE-627)360059651 (DE-600)2098765-1 1477-7525 nnns volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 20 2022 1 01 12
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y doi (DE-627)SPR05119502X (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Khadka, J verfasserin aut Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. Quality of Life (dpeaa)DE-He213 Preference-based measure (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residential aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Quality of care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hutchinson, C aut Milte, R aut Cleland, J aut Muller, A aut Bowes, N aut Ratcliffe, J aut Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes London : BioMed Central, 2003 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. (DE-627)360059651 (DE-600)2098765-1 1477-7525 nnns volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 20 2022 1 01 12
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y doi (DE-627)SPR05119502X (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Khadka, J verfasserin aut Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. Quality of Life (dpeaa)DE-He213 Preference-based measure (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residential aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Quality of care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hutchinson, C aut Milte, R aut Cleland, J aut Muller, A aut Bowes, N aut Ratcliffe, J aut Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes London : BioMed Central, 2003 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. (DE-627)360059651 (DE-600)2098765-1 1477-7525 nnns volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 20 2022 1 01 12
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y doi (DE-627)SPR05119502X (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Khadka, J verfasserin aut Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. Quality of Life (dpeaa)DE-He213 Preference-based measure (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residential aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Quality of care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hutchinson, C aut Milte, R aut Cleland, J aut Muller, A aut Bowes, N aut Ratcliffe, J aut Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes London : BioMed Central, 2003 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. (DE-627)360059651 (DE-600)2098765-1 1477-7525 nnns volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 20 2022 1 01 12
language	English
source	Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12
sourceStr	Enthalten in Health and quality of life outcomes 20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez. volume:20 year:2022 number:1 day:01 month:12
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Quality of Life Preference-based measure Aged care Residential aged care Quality of care
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Health and quality of life outcomes
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Khadka, J @@aut@@ Hutchinson, C @@aut@@ Milte, R @@aut@@ Cleland, J @@aut@@ Muller, A @@aut@@ Bowes, N @@aut@@ Ratcliffe, J @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-12-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	360059651
id	SPR05119502X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR05119502X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230509121705.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230508s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR05119502X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khadka, J</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Quality of Life</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Preference-based measure</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Aged care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Residential aged care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Quality of care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hutchinson, C</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Milte, R</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cleland, J</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Muller, A</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bowes, N</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ratcliffe, J</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Health and quality of life outcomes</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)360059651</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2098765-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1477-7525</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:20</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:01</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">20</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">01</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Khadka, J
spellingShingle	Khadka, J misc Quality of Life misc Preference-based measure misc Aged care misc Residential aged care misc Quality of care Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care
authorStr	Khadka, J
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)360059651
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1477-7525
topic_title	Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care Quality of Life (dpeaa)DE-He213 Preference-based measure (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residential aged care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Quality of care (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Quality of Life misc Preference-based measure misc Aged care misc Residential aged care misc Quality of care
topic_unstemmed	misc Quality of Life misc Preference-based measure misc Aged care misc Residential aged care misc Quality of care
topic_browse	misc Quality of Life misc Preference-based measure misc Aged care misc Residential aged care misc Quality of care
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Health and quality of life outcomes
hierarchy_parent_id	360059651
hierarchy_top_title	Health and quality of life outcomes
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)360059651 (DE-600)2098765-1
title	Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR05119502X (SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e
title_full	Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care
author_sort	Khadka, J
journal	Health and quality of life outcomes
journalStr	Health and quality of life outcomes
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Khadka, J Hutchinson, C Milte, R Cleland, J Muller, A Bowes, N Ratcliffe, J
container_volume	20
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Khadka, J
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y
title_sort	assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older australians in residential aged care
title_auth	Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care
abstract	Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. © The Author(s) 2022
abstractGer	Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. © The Author(s) 2022
abstract_unstemmed	Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings. © The Author(s) 2022
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y
remote_bool	true
author2	Hutchinson, C Milte, R Cleland, J Muller, A Bowes, N Ratcliffe, J
author2Str	Hutchinson, C Milte, R Cleland, J Muller, A Bowes, N Ratcliffe, J
ppnlink	360059651
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y
up_date	2024-07-03T20:20:58.734Z
_version_	1803590627482402816
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR05119502X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230509121705.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230508s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR05119502X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12955-022-02065-y-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khadka, J</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) is a new older-person-specific quality of life instrument designed for application in quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. The QOL-ACC was designed from its inception with older people receiving aged care services ensuring its strong content validity. Given that the QOL-ACC has already been validated in home care settings and a preference-weighted value set developed, we aimed to assess feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the QOL-ACC in residential aged care settings. Methods Individuals living in residential aged care facilities participated in an interviewer-facilitated survey. The survey included the QOL-ACC, QCE-ACC (quality of aged care experience measure) and two other preference-based quality of life instruments (ASCOT and EQ-5D-5L). Feasibility was assessed using missing data and ceiling/floor effects. Construct validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the QOL-ACC and other instruments (convergent validity) and the QOL-ACC’s ability to discriminate varying levels of self-rated health and quality of life. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results Of the 200 residents (mean age, 85 ± 7.7 years) who completed the survey, 60% were female and 69% were born in Australia. One in three participating residents self-rated their health as fair/poor. The QOL-ACC had no missing data but had small floor effects (0.5%) and acceptable ceiling effects (7.5%). It demonstrated moderate correlation with ASCOT (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Residents with poor self-rated health and quality of life had significantly lower scores on the QOL-ACC. The internal consistency reliability of the QOL-ACC and its dimensions was good (α = 0.70–0.77). Conclusions The QOL-ACC demonstrated good feasibility, construct validity and internal consistency reliability to assess aged care-related quality of life. Moderate correlations of the QOL-ACC and other instruments provide evidence of its construct validity and signifies that the QOL-ACC adds non-redundant and non-interchangeable information beyond the existing instruments. A stronger correlation with the QCE-ACC than other instruments may indicate that quality of life is more intimately connected with the care experience than either health- or social-related quality of life in residential aged care settings.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Quality of Life</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Preference-based measure</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Aged care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Residential aged care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Quality of care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hutchinson, C</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Milte, R</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cleland, J</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Muller, A</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bowes, N</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ratcliffe, J</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Health and quality of life outcomes</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">20(2022), 1 vom: 01. Dez.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)360059651</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2098765-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1477-7525</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:20</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:01</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02065-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">20</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">01</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4002676

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Assessing feasibility, construct validity, and reliability of a new aged care-specific preference-based quality of life instrument: evidence from older Australians in residential aged care

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?