What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB?
- PMID: 33909157
- PMCID: PMC8318935
- DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01306-z
What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB?
Abstract
Economic evaluation combines costs and benefits to support decision-making when assessing new interventions using preference-based measures to measure and value benefits in health or health-related quality of life. These health-focused instruments have limited ability to capture wider impacts on informal carers or outcomes in other sectors such as social care. Sector-specific instruments can be used but this is problematic when the impact of an intervention straddles different sectors.An alternative approach is to develop a generic preference-based measure that is sufficiently broad to capture important cross-sector outcomes. We consider the options for the selection of domains for a cross-sector generic measure including how to identify domains, who should provide information on the domains and how this should be framed. Beyond domain identification, considerations of criteria and stakeholder needs are also identified.This paper sets out the case for an approach that relies on the voice of patients, social care users and informal carers as the main source of domains and describes how the approach was operationalised in the 'Extending the QALY' project which developed the new measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ health and wellbeing instrument). We conclude by discussing the strengths and limitations of this approach. The new measure should be sufficiently generic to be used to consistently evaluate health and social care interventions, yet also sensitive enough to pick up important changes in quality of life in patients, social care users and carers.
Keywords: Carers; Domain selection; Extending the QALY project; Measuring and valuing health; PROM; QALY; Social care.
© 2021. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NICE (www.nice.org.uk), the EuroQol Research Foundation, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Figures
References
-
- Al-Janabi, H., Coast, J., Flynn, T.N.: What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? a meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc. Sci. Med. 67(1), 111–121 (2008) - PubMed
-
- Forder, J., Theoretical Concepts in Assessing the Outcomes of Social Care., et al.: PSSRU. University of Kent, Canterbury (2007)
-
- Bowling, A.: Quality of life: Measures and Meanings in Social Care Research, in Methods Review. NIHR School for Social Care Research, London (2014)
-
- Forder, J.E., Caiels, J.: Measuring the outcomes of long-term care. Soc. Sci. Med. 73(12), 1766–1774 (2011) - PubMed
-
- Netten, A., et al.: Outcomes of social care for adults developing a preference weighted measure. Health Technol. Assess. 16(16), 1–166 (2012) - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
