Widening the View: A Standardized Approach to Capturing Family Members’ Perspectives on Quality of Life in Long-term Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Rationale: Family members provide important functional and socio-emotional support to residents living in Long-Term Care (LTC). With high rates of cognitive impairment among residents, family member input is increasingly valued in new LTC standards provided by Health Standards Organization (HSO), given their unique perspectives, knowledge, and role in the resident’s circle of care. A standardized instrument to collect this input is lacking in the current literature. \nMethods: A scoping review was conducted to gather and evaluate the existing literature studying the instruments used to evaluate family perspectives on Quality of Life (QoL) in LTC. This and retrospective analyses of secondary data collected from 3 previous studies using the interRAI Family QoL LTCF instrument (FamQoL V1), informed the development of a new instrument, the interRAI Family QoL LTCF Version 2 (FamQoL V2). An expert panel participated in the Delphi method to gather expert input into the development of a Version 2 interRAI Family QoL-LTCF (FamQoL V2) Instrument, through the Seniors Quality Leap Initiative (SQLI). Primary data were then collected from 38 LTC homes in Canada and the US with a total of 716 unique family members responding. These data were used to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument, develop summary scales, and examine distributions of Family QoL perspectives in North American LTC homes. \nResults: The previously published instruments varied considerably with item counts ranging from 21 to 104 and 4 to 15 summary domains. While several common item themes were identified (e.g., living environment, resident care, autonomy, security, global recommendations), others were less consistent among the instruments (e.g., administration, admission process, therapies). Family members had lower positive response rates on the items with higher missing or non-response rates (e.g., bath/shower when wish, affection and romance, social activities). They scored higher than residents on items related to staff responsiveness and trust and lower than residents on items related to social life and personal control. Several Delphi rounds were conducted to build consensus, resulting in a 25-item FamQoL V2 instrument with 12 shared QoL-LTCF and 13 unique FamQoL V2 items. The instrument had strong performance. Five summary scales were developed through factor analysis, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.88 to 0.92. \nConclusion: This dissertation provides actionable evidence that supports the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare Improvement, meeting new national LTC standards, and assisting LTC homes in their quality improvement efforts. Through an extensive scoping review, analysis of a large and multi-study secondary dataset, expert Delphi input, multi-country primary data collection and psychometric testing, and family member feedback, a FamQoL V2 instrument was developed and accepted by a large consortium of LTC providers and researchers (SQLI). The instrument is operationally feasible, with a shorter number of items compared to other surveys and interoperability with other interRAI instruments. The scientific work underlying this instrument’s development has been reviewed and approved by interRAI’s Instrument and Systems Development (ISD) Committee and the FamQoL V2 is now included in interRAI’s published manual for QoL measures. An evidence-informed, reliable instrument is now available for jurisdictions to standardize how this important perspective is collected and measured in LTC.
Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Le tri à trois modèles
les 5 600 travaux triés →Les trois modèles l'ont jugé hors champ.
Dissertation developing a standardized instrument to capture family members' perspectives on quality of life in long-term care; measurement development for a health-services construct, on the boundary with methods research.
It develops and validates a quality-of-life instrument for long-term care, not a research-methods object.
Develops a family quality-of-life instrument for long-term care; health services measurement, not metaresearch.
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,153 | 0,119 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».