Health-related quality of life measure based on the Minimum Data Set

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 490-506

  Wodchis, Walter P ^a   Hirdes, John P ^b   Feeny, David H ^c  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health utilities index; Health related quality of life; Long term care; Minimum data set; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE (HRQOL); MINIMUM DATA SETS (MDS);

APARTMENT HOUSES; DATA REDUCTION; HOSPITALS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

HEALTH CARE;

AGE; ANALYTIC METHOD; CANADA; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY; DATA BASE; ELDERLY CARE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH STATUS; HOME CARE; HOUSING; HUMAN; LONG TERM CARE; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POPULATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESIDENT; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS; AGED; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MALE; NURSING HOME; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VALIDATION STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HOME CARE SERVICES; HUMANS; LONG-TERM CARE; MALE; NURSING HOMES; ONTARIO; QUALITY OF LIFE; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 0141764771     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462303000424     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Aller LJ, Van Ess Coeling H. Quality of life: Its meaning to the long-term care resident. J Gerontol Nurs. 1995;2:20-25.
2. Baladan DJ, Sagi, PC, Goldfarb NJ, Nettler S. Weights for scoring the Quality of Well Being Instrument among rheumatoid arthritics: A comparison to general public weights. Med Care. 1986;24:973-980.
3. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19:787-805.
4. Birren JE, Dieckmann L. Concepts and content of quality of life in the later years: An overview. In: Birren JE, Lubben JE, Rowe JC, Deutchman DE, eds. The concept and measurement of quality of life in the frail elderly. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991:344-360.
5. Berthelot JM, Roberge R, Wolfson MC. The calculation of health-adjusted life expectancy for a Canadian province using a multi-attribute utility function: A first attempt. Ottawa: Social and Economic Studies Division, Analytical Studies Branch, Statistics Canada; 1992.
6. Bond J. Quality of life for people with dementia: Approaches to the challenge of measurement. Ageing Soc. 1999;19:561-579.
7. Busschbach JJ, Hessing DJ, DeCharro FT. The utility of health at different stages of life: A quantitative approach. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37:153-158.
8. Crooks VC, Schnelle JF, Ouslander JP, McNees MP. Use of the minimum data set to rate incontinence severity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43:1363-1369.
9. Dolan, P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141-154.
10. Essink-Bot ML, Krabe PF, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol Instrument. Med Care. 1997;35:522-537.
11. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
12. Frederiksen K, Tariot P, De Jonghe E. Minimum Data Set Plus (MDS+) scores compared with scores from five rating scales. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:305-312.
13. Fries BE, Schneider DP, Foley JW, et al. Refining a case-mix measure for nursing homes: Resource Utilization Groups (RUG-III). Med Care. 1994;32:668-685.
14. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences: Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:585-592.
15. Furlong WJ. Variability of utility scores for health states among general population groups. MSc thesis, McMaster University; 1996.
16. Gold MR., Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-134.
17. Hadorn DD, Uebersax J. Large-scale outcome evaluation: How should quality of life be measured? I. Calibration of a brief questionnaire and a search for preference subgroups. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;46:607-618.
18. Hartmaier SL, Sloane PD, Guess HA, Koch GC. Validation of the Minimum Data Set Cognitive Performance Scale: Agreement with the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1995;50A:M128-M133.
19. Hawes C, Morris JN, Phillips CD, et al.. Reliability estimates for the Minimum Data Set for nursing home resident assessment and care screening (MDS). Gerontologist. 1995;35:172-178.
20. Hays RD, Siu AL, Keeler E, et al. Long-term care residents' preferences for health states on the Quality of Well-Being Scale. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:254-261.
21. Hirdes JP, Zimmerman D, Hallman KG, Soucie PS. Use of the MDS quality indicators to assess quality of care in institutional settings. Can J Qual Health Care. 1998;14:5-11.
22. Hirdes JP, Carpenter GI. Health outcomes among the frail elderly in communities and institutions: Use of the minimum data set (MDS) to create effective linkages between research and policy. Can J Aging/Can Public Policy. (Special Joint Issue). 1997;(Suppl):53-69.
23. Hirdes JP, Fries BE, Morris JN, et al. Integrated health information systems based on the RAIMDS series of assessment instruments. Healthc Manage Forum. 1999;12:30-40.
24. Kaplan RM. Value judgment in the Oregon Medicaid experiment. Med Care. 1994;32:975-988.
25. Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol. 1982;1:61-66.
26. Martin AJ, Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, Lumley T. A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:137-147.
27. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:36.
28. Morris JN, Fries BE, Steel K, et al. Comprehensive clinical assessment in community settings: Applicability of the MDS-HC. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:1017-1024.
29. Morris JN, Nonemaker S, Murphy K, et al. Commitment to change: Revision of HCFA's RAI. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:1011-1016.
30. Morris JN, Fries BE, Morris SA. Scaling ADL's within the MDS. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1999;54:M546-M553.
31. Neumann PJ, Juntz KM, Leon J, et al. Health utilities in Alzheimer's disease: A cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers. Med Care. 1998;37:27-32.
32. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;3:S217-S232.
33. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993:22.
34. Patrick DL, Sittampalam Y, Somerville SM, Carter WB, Bergner M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:1402-1407.
35. Phillips CD, Morris JN. The potential for using administrative and clinical data to analyze outcomes for the cognitively impaired: An assessment of the Minimum Data Set for nursing homes. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1998;11:162-167.
36. Phillips CD, Hawes C, Morris JN, Mor V, Fries BE. Effects of the RAI on quality of care: Executive summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Program on Aging and Long-term Care; 1996.
37. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:33-41.
38. Rissanen P, Sogaard J, Sintonen H. Do QOL instruments agree? A comparison of the 15D and NHP in hip and knee replacements. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:696-705.
39. Roberge R, Berthelot J-M, Wolfson M. Health and socio-economic inequalities. Canadian social trends. Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Supply and Technology; 1995:15.
40. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis. 1978;31:697-702.
41. Sgadari A, Morris JN, Fries BE, et al. Efforts to establish the reliability of the RAI. Age Ageing. 1997;26(Suppl 2):27-30.
42. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system (Health Utilities Index Mark 2). Med Care. 1996;34:702-722.
43. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle MH. Provisional Health Status Index for the Ontario Health Survey. Hamilton: McMaster University; 1992.
44. United States Congress. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act OBRA. 1987. Public Law 100-203. Nursing Home Reform Act. 1819 (42 USC).
45. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
46. Werko L. Health technology assessment at the end of life: A realistic view of death and palliative care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:903-923.
47. Wieland D, Rubenstein LV, Hirsch SH. Quality of life in nursing homes: An emerging focus of research and practice. In: Katz PR, Kane, RL, eds. Quality care in geriatric settings: Focus on ethical issues. New York, NY: Springer; 1995:149-194.
48. Williams BC, Fries BE, Foley WJ, Schneider D, Gavazzi M. Activities of daily living and costs in nursing homes. Healthc Financ Rev. 1994;15:117-135.