Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To systematically compare, via ranking and best worst tasks, the relative importance of key dimensions of quality of life for younger and older people.

Methods

A web-based survey was developed for administration to two Australia-wide community-based samples comprising younger people aged 18–64 years and older people aged 65 years and above. Respondents were asked to rank 12 quality of life dimensions. Respondents also completed a successive best worst task using the same 12 quality of life dimensions.

Results

The relative importance of the quality of life dimensions differed for younger and older person samples. For older people, the ability to be independent and to have control over their daily lives were particularly important for their overall quality of life whereas for younger people, mental health was considered most important.

Conclusions

Many interventions accessed by older people in geriatric medicine and aged care sectors have a broader impact upon quality of life beyond health status. The findings from this study indicate that a focus on broader aspects of quality of life may also be consistent with the preferences of older people themselves as to what constitutes quality of life from their perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Milte, C., Walker, R., Luszcz, M., Lancsar, E., Kaambwa, B., & Ratcliffe, J. (2014). How important is health status in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 12(1), 73–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hopman, W., & Verner, J. (2003). Quality of life during and after inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 34, 801–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Richardson, J., & McKie, J. (2011). Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne. Research Paper (64).

  5. Richardson, J., Khan, M., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35, 276–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, G., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Ratcliffe, J., & Richardson, J. (2016). Mapping between 6 multi attribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 160–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coast, J., Flynn, T. N., Natarajan, L., et al. (2008). Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science and Medicine, 67(5), 874–882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Netten, A., Burge, P., Malley, J., Potoglou, D., Towers, A., Brazier, J., et al. (2012). Outcomes of social care for adults: Developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technology Assessment, 16, 1–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grewal, I., Lewis, J., Flynn, T., Brown, J., Bond, J., & Coast, J. (2006). Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? Social Science and Medicine, 62, 1891–1901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coast, J., Kinghorn, P., & Mitchell, P. (2015). The development of capability measures in health economics: Opportunities, challenges and progress. Patient., 8, 119–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Van Hout, B. (2015). A comparison of methods for converting DCE Values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY scale. Medical Decision Making, 35, 328–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stata Corporation. (2014). Intercooled Stata 13.1 for windows. College Station: Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pink, B. (2006). Information paper: An introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Cat no. 2039.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

  14. Pink, B. (2006). Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)—Technical Paper. Cat no. 2039.0.55.001. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2006A.

  15. Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Petrie, A., & Sabin, C. (2007). Medical statistics at a Glance. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  17. De Vet, H., et al. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1033–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewin, G., Burton, E., Sparrow, P., et al. (2011). Development of a community care research agenda for Australia. Australasian Journal of Ageing, 30(1), 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Makai, P., Brouwer, W., Koopmanschap, A., & Stolk, E. (2014). Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 102, 83–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis, J., Liu-Ambrose, T., Richardson, C., & Bryan, S. (2013). A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: Are they complements or substitutes? Quality of Life Research, 22(5), 969–977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McCaffrey, N., Gill, L., Cameron, I. D., Patterson, J., Crotty, M., & Ratcliffe, J. (2015). What features of consumer-directed home-based support services are important to older Australians and their informal carers—development of attributes for a discrete choice experiment. Health and Social Care in the Community, 23, 654–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ratcliffe, J., Laver, K., Couzner, L., & Crotty, M. (2012). Health economics and geriatrics: Challenges and opportunities. In Atwood, C. S. (Ed.), Geriatrics, 2012 ISBN: 978-953-51-0080-5, InTech Open.

  23. Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Huynh, E., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2016). Nothing about us without us? A comparison of adolescent and adult health state values for the Child Health Utility-9D using profile case best worst scaling. Health Economics, 25(4), 486–496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ratcliffe, J., Stevens, K., Flynn, T., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Whose values in health? An empirical comparison of the application of adolescent and adult values for the CHU9D and AQOL-6D in the Australian adolescent general population. Value in Health, 15, 730–736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Brazier, J., Stevens, K., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Developing adolescent specific health state values for economic evaluation: An application of profile case best worst scaling to the Child Health Utility-9D. Pharmacoeconomics, 30, 713–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Norman, R., King, M., Clarke, D., Street, D., et al. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face to face administration of a time trade off task. Quality of Life Research, 19, 499–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Household use of information technology, Australia, 2012-13. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded in part by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP110200079).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Flinders Health Economics Group, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia

    Julie Ratcliffe, Thomas Flint & Billingsley Kaambwa

  2. Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Emily Lancsar

  3. Disability and Community Inclusion Unit, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia

    Ruth Walker

  4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia

    Gill Lewin

  5. School of Psychology, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia

    Mary Luszcz

  6. John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Ian D. Cameron

Authors
  1. Julie Ratcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Lancsar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Flint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Billingsley Kaambwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ruth Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gill Lewin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mary Luszcz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ian D. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Ratcliffe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Julie Ratcliffe declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Emily Lancsar declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Thomas Flint declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Billingsley Kaambwa declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Ruth Walker declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Gill Lewin declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Mary Luszcz declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Ian Cameron declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by Flinders Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (Project no: 6682). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix: Categorisation of Quality of Life dimensions according to MAUI content

Appendix: Categorisation of Quality of Life dimensions according to MAUI content

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ratcliffe, J., Lancsar, E., Flint, T. et al. Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life. Qual Life Res 26, 299–309 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1391-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1391-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation