Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of an Item Pool for a Needs-Based Measure of Quality of Life of Carers of a Family Member with Dementia

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives

This paper describes the development of an item pool for a needs-based self-report outcome measure of the impact of caring for a relative, friend or neighbour with dementia on carer quality of life. The aims are to give a detailed account of the steps involved and describe the resulting item pool.

Methods

Seven steps were followed: generation of an initial item set drawing on 42 needs-led interviews with carers; a content and face validity check; assessment of psychometric potential; testing of response formats; pre-testing through cognitive interviews with 22 carers; administration rehearsal with two carers; and final review.

Results

An initial set of 99 items was refined to a pool of 70 to be answered using a binary response format. Items were excluded due to overlap with others, ceiling effects, ambiguity, dependency on function of the person with dementia or two-part phrasing. Items retained covered a breadth of areas of impact of caring and were understandable and acceptable to respondents.

Conclusions

The resulting dementia carer-specific item pool reflects the accounts of a diverse sample of those who provide care for a person with dementia, allowing them to define the nature of the impact on their lives and resulting in a valid, acceptable set of items.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu YT, Fratiglioni L, Matthews FE, Lobo A, Breteler MM, Skoog I, Brayne C. Dementia in western Europe: epidemiological evidence and implications for policy making. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(1):116–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beesley S. Informal care in England: the Wanless social care review. London: King’s Fund; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carers’ Trust. The role of a carer. What is a Carer? 2015. http://www.carers.org/role-carer. Accessed 8 Oct 2018

  4. Prince M, Knapp M, Guerchet M, McCrone P, Prina M, Comas-Herrera A, et al. Dementia UK update. 2nd ed. London: Alzheimer’s Society; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buckner L, Yeandle S. Valuing carers 2015—the rising value of carers’ support. London: Carers UK; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dickinson C, Dow J, Gibson G, Hayes L, Robalino S, Robinson L. Psychosocial intervention for carers of people with dementia: what components are most effective and when? A systematic review of systematic reviews. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017;29(1):31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dow J, Robinson J, Robalino S, Finch T, McColl E, Robinson L. How best to assess quality of life in informal carers of people with dementia; a systematic review of existing outcome measures. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones C, Edwards RT, Hounsome B. Health economics research into supporting carers of people with dementia: a systematic review of outcome measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Moniz-Cook E, Vernooij-Dassen M, Woods R, Verhey F, Chattat R, De Vugt M, et al. A European consensus on outcome measures for psychosocial intervention research in dementia care. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12(1):14–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Page TE, Farina N, Brown A, Daley S, Bowling A, Basset T, et al. Instruments measuring the disease-specific quality of life of family carers of people with neurodegenerative diseases: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL—a new facility for the measurement of health- related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. World Health Organization. WHOQOL-BREF introduction, administration, scoring, and generic version of the instrument. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):375–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Logsdon RG, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, Teri L. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: patient and caregiver reports. J Ment Health Aging. 1999;5(1):21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Maines ML, Vassar SD, Fitten J, Strickland T. Development and preliminary evaluation of a quality of life measure targeted at dementia caregivers. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cole JC, Ito D, Chen YJ, Cheng R, Bolognese J, Li-McLeod J. Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease on Caregiver Questionnaire: internal consistency, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability of a new measure for assessing caregiver burden. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, van Gorp B, Redekop WK. The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(6):1005–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoefman RJ, van Exel NJ, Foets M, Brouwer WB. Sustained informal care: the feasibility, construct validity and test–retest reliability of the CarerQol-instrument to measure the impact of informal care in long-term care. Aging Ment Health. 2011;15:1018–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Doyal L, Gough I. A theory of human need. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1991.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. McKenna SP, Doward LC. The needs-based approach to quality of life assessment. Value Health. 2004;7:S1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lloyd J, Patterson T, Muers J. The positive aspects of caregiving in dementia: a critical review of the qualitative literature. Dementia. 2016;15(6):1534–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sörensen S, Duberstein P, Gill D, Pinquart M. Dementia care: mental health effects, intervention strategies, and clinical implications. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(11):961–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Diwan S, Hougham GW, Sachs GA. Chronological patterns and issues precipitating grieving over the course of caregiving among family caregivers of persons with dementia. Clin Geront. 2009;32:358–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanders S, Corley C. Are they grieving? A qualitative analysis examining grief in caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Soc Work Health Care. 2003;37:35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cuijpers P. Depressive disorders in caregivers of dementia patients: a systematic review. Aging Ment Health. 2005;9(4):325–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Joling KJ, van Marwijk HW, Veldhuijze AE, van der Horst HE, Scheltens P, Smit F, van Hout HP. The two-year incidence of depression and anxiety disorders in spousal caregivers of persons with dementia: who is at the greatest risk? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;23(3):293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Alzheimer’s Society. Turning up the volume: unheard voices of dementia. 2017. https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/turningupthevolume. Accessed 8 Oct 2018.

  30. Wilburn J, McKenna SP, Twiss J, Kemp K, Campbell S. Assessing quality of life in Crohn’s disease: development and validation of the Crohn’s Life Impact Questionnaire (CLIQ). Qual Life Res. 2015;24(9):2279–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Doward LC, Spoorenberg A, Cook SA, Whalley D, Helliwell PS, Kay LJ, et al. Development of the ASQoL: a quality of life instrument specific to ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62(1):20–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McKenna SP, Doward LC, Whalley D, Tennant A, Emery P, Veale DJ. Development of the PsAQoL: a quality of life instrument specific to psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(2):162–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people. Preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1891–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hunt SM, McKenna SP. The QLDS: a scale for the measurement of quality of life in depression. Health Pol. 1992;22:307–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pini S, Ingleson E, Megson M, Clare L, Wright P, Oyebode JR. A needs-led framework for understanding the impact of caring for a family member with dementia. Gerontologist. 2017;58(2):e68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis Software, Version 11. Melbourne: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing and questionnaire design: a training manual. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Coale K. An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Blair J, Conrad FG. Sample size for cognitive interview pretesting. Public Opin Q. 2011;75(4):636–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Peterson CH, Peterson NA, Powell KG. Cognitive interviewing for item development: validity evidence based on content and response processes. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2017;50(4):217–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1339564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual of Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. 2009. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the input of our co-investigator colleagues: Dr Zoe Hoare, University of Bangor, Professor Paul Kind, University of Leeds, and Emeritus Professor Alan Tennant, University of Leeds, as well as advice and help with recruitment from Carers Leeds and the Alzheimer’s Society. We would also like to thank all those carers who participated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Dementia Studies, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK

    Jan R. Oyebode

  2. Section of Patient Centred Outcome Research, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Simon Pini, Emma Ingleson, Molly Megson & Penny Wright

  3. Psychometric Laboratory for Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Mike Horton

  4. The Centre for Research in Ageing and Cognitive Health, Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Linda Clare

  5. Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Hareth Al-Janabi

  6. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Carol Brayne

Authors
  1. Jan R. Oyebode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Pini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emma Ingleson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Molly Megson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mike Horton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Linda Clare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hareth Al-Janabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carol Brayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Penny Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the overall study design and reviewed and approved the paper. MM, EI and SP collected the data and contributed to analysis. JO wrote the paper with help from PW and SP.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan R. Oyebode.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jan Oyebode, Penny Wright, Simon Pini and Mike Horton each declare that this work was supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (Grant title: “HQLC Dementia Carers Instrument Development: DECIDE” [MR/M025179/1]) and that the grant is registered on the UK Research and Innovation Gateway (http://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=MR/M025179/1). They also declare that they have received financial support for travel to meetings for the study, manuscript preparation or other purposes from the grant funder as part of the award only. In addition, Penny Wright declares that she is the principal investigator and was the main applicant for the funding that was received from the MRC and NIHR, and Jan Oyebode declares her position as a co-investigator. Emma Ingleson, Molly Megson, Linda Clare, Hareth Al-Janabi and Carol Brayne have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

This work was supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (Grant title: “HQLC Dementia Carers Instrument Development: DECIDE” [MR/M025179/1]). Jan Oyebode, Penny Wright, Simon Pini and Mike Horton have received financial support for travel to meetings for the study, manuscript preparation or other purposes from the grant funder as part of the award only.

Ethical approval and informed consent

Ethical approval was given in November 2015 by a UK National Health Service ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data availability statement

The University of Leeds will make a link to the published study available through the White Rose repository. The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from https://doi.org/10.5518/375.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1093 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oyebode, J.R., Pini, S., Ingleson, E. et al. Development of an Item Pool for a Needs-Based Measure of Quality of Life of Carers of a Family Member with Dementia. Patient 12, 125–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0334-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0334-4

Search

Navigation