Advertisement

The General Framework and Methods of the Care Keys Research

  • Marja Vaarama
  • Richard Pieper
  • Andrew Sixsmith
Initially, there were four major research objectives in the Care Keys research:
  1. 1.

    What are the determinants of quality of life (QoL) of care-dependent old people; and what is the role of care in the production of it?

     
  2. 2.

    What are the determinants of quality of care from the perspectives of the clients and professional carers, and how are they inter-related?

     
  3. 3.

    How should care be managed to provide positive care outcomes?

     
  4. 4.

    Development of a Toolkit, comprising models and instrumentation for evaluating care outcomes within applied research and care management practice.

     
Care Keys has focused on older people who require help to cope with many aspects of daily life and are often dependent on care provided to them, either at home or in institutional settings, such as nursing homes. For many of these people, the possibilities, choices and opportunities in their everyday lives are more limited because of increasing frailty and loss of independence, with an inevitable impact on their QoL. The aim of the research was to find out how long-term care (LTC) provided to people in their homes or institutional settings impacts on their QoL and how LTC could be improved to support and enhance the well-being of the clients. A particular emphasis was on the “voice” of the clients. An initial literature review revealed that this type of research approach was rare, and the availability of appropriate models and instruments appropriate for use within Care Keys was very limited. Therefore, two further research tasks were defined:
  1. 1.

    To develop a theoretical model of care-related quality of life (crQoL) that also includes concepts of quality of care and management of quality of care.

     
  2. 2.

    To select, develop and validate instrumentation for research on crQoL.

     

Hence, the Care Keys project involved both theoretical and empirical research. This chapter outlines the general theoretical framework of the Care Keys research, and in Part II, the results of our theoretical research are discussed.

Keywords

Care Outcome Target Efficiency Client Outcome Good Quality Care WHOQOL Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldock, J. C., & Hadlow, J. (2002). Self-talk versus needs-talk: An exploration of the priorities of housebound older people. Quality in Ageing, 3(1), 42–48.Google Scholar
  2. Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes, & M. Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging. Perspectives from the behavioural sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bebbington, A., & Davies, B. (1983). Equity and efficiency in the allocation of the personal social services. Journal of Social Policy, 12, 309–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Birren, J. E., Lubben, J. E., Rowe, J. C., & Deutschmann, D. E. (Eds.). (1991). The concept and measurement of QoL in frail elderly. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bordereau, L., Szalai, J. P., Ennis, M., Leszcz, M., Speca, M., Sela, R., et al. (2003). QoL in a randomized trial of group psychosocial support in metastatic breast cancer: Overall effects of the intervention and an exploration of missing data. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 1944–1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowling, A. (1991). Measuring health. A review of QoL measurement scales. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bowling, A. (1995). Measuring disease; a review of disease-specific QoL measurement scales. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring health: A review of QoL measurement scales (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bowling, A. (2004). Measuring health: A review of QoL Measurement Scales (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carod-Artal, J., Egido, J. A., González, J. L., & Varela de Seijas, E. (2000). QoL among stroke survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: Experience of a stroke unit. Stroke, 31, 2995–3000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, B., Bebbington, A., Charnley, H., et al. (1990). Resources, needs and outcomes in community-based care. A comparative study of the production of welfare for elderly people in ten local authorities in England and Wales. Canterbury: PSSRU University of Kent at Canterbury.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, B., Fernández, J., & Nomer, B. (2000). Equity and efficiency policy in community care. Needs, service productivities, efficiencies and their implications. England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, B., & Knapp, M. (1981). Old people’s homes and the production of welfare. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Donabedian, A. (1969). Some issues in evaluation the quality of nursing care. American Journal of Public Health, 59, 1833–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1997). QoL: The scope of the term and its breadth of measurement. In R. I. Brown (Ed.), QoL for people with disabilities. Models, research and practice. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.Google Scholar
  17. Frytak, J. (2000). Assessment of QoL. In R. Kane, & R. Kane (Eds.), Assessing older persons. measures, meaning and practical applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hays, R. D., Cunningham, W. E., Sherbourne, C. D., Wilson, I. B., Wu, A. W., Cleary, P. D., et al. (2000). Health-related QoL in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection in the United States: Results from the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study. American Journal of Medicine, 108, 714–722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, B. (1990). QoL. In S. Peace (Ed.), Researching social gerontology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Kavanagh, S., & Stewart, A. (1995). Economic evaluations of mental health care. In M. Knapp (Ed.), The economic evaluation of mental health care (pp. 27–60). PSSRU. CEMH. Arena. Aldershot.Google Scholar
  21. Knapp, M. (1984). The economics of social care. Studies in social policy. Hong Kong: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
  22. Lawton, M. P. (1991). A multidimensional view of QoL in frail elders. In J. Birren, J. Lubben, J. Rowe, & D. Deutchman (Eds.), The concept of measurement of QoL in frail elders (pp. 3–27). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mozley, C., Sutcliffe, C., Bagley, H., Cordingley, L., Challis, D., Huxley, P., et al. (2004). Towards quality care. Outcomes for older people in care homes. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Netten, A. (2004). The social production of welfare. In M. Knapp, D. Challis, J.-L. Fernandez, & A. Netten (Eds.), Long-term care: Matching resources and needs. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Øvretveit, J. (1998). Evaluating health interventions. An introduction to evaluation of health treatments, services, policies and organizational interventions. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Renwick, R., Brown, I., & Nagler, M. (Eds.). (1996). QoL in health promotion and rehabilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Sefton, T., Byford, S., McDaid, D., Hills, J., & Knapp, M. (2003). Making the most of it. Economic evaluation in the social welfare field. Layerthorpe: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-Bref QoL assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality Life Research, 13(2), 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tester, S., Hubbard, G., Downs, M., MacDonald, C., & Murphy, J. (2003). Exploring perceptions of QoL of frail older people during and after their transition to institutional care. Research Findings 24, Growing Older Project. <http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gop/GOFindings24.pdf>.
  30. Vaarama, M., Mattila, V., Laaksonen, S., & Valtonen, H. (1997). Target efficiency—report on development and piloting of the target efficiency indicators and model. Helsinki: Stakes.Google Scholar
  31. Vaarama, M., & Pieper, R. (2005). Managing integrated care for older persons. Stakes and the European Health Management Association. Saarijärvi: Gummerus Printing.Google Scholar
  32. Vaarama, M., Pieper, R., & Sixsmith, A. (2007). Care-related QoL in old age. Conceptual and empirical exploration. In H. Mollenkopf, & A. Walker (Ed.). Quality of Life in Old Age. International and Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 215–32.Google Scholar
  33. WHOQOL Group (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-Bref QoL assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 551–558.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marja Vaarama
    • 1
  • Richard Pieper
    • 2
  • Andrew Sixsmith
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social WorkUniversity of LaplandFinland
  2. 2.Fak. Sozial-u. Wirtschaftswiss. Urbanistik und SozialplanungUniversity of BambergGermany
  3. 3.Department of GerontologySimon Fraser University at Harbour CentreVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations