MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161952146 · doi:10.1177/0269216306072764

QOLLTI-F: measuring family carer quality of life

2006· article· en· W2161952146 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health CareJewish General HospitalMichel-SarrazinSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversité LavalUniversity of SaskatchewanMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineContent validityConstruct validityInclusion (mineral)GerontologyReliability (semiconductor)ValidityFamily medicinePsychometricsClinical psychologyPsychologyNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of palliative care is to optimize the quality of life (QOL) of people living with a life-threatening illness and that of their families. While there have been important advances in measurement of the QOL of palliative care patients, little attention has been paid to the QOL of their carers (family caregivers). To develop and deliver the most effective services to these carers, their QOL needs to be measured with acceptable and psychometrically sound instruments that have content validity. METHODS: This study reports three phases of the development and testing of such a measure: QOLLTI-F, Quality of Life in Life Threatening Illness--Family Carer Version, simultaneously in English and French. Participants were carers from 12 Canadian palliative care services who were asked to complete QOLLTI-F on three occasions. RESULTS: The final version of QOLLTI-F consists of 16 items. It was deemed acceptable by the vast majority of carers and a longer, 24-item version was completed in a median of 12 min. Content validity was assured by inclusion of all domains reported by carers to be important to their QOL: state of carer, patient wellbeing, quality of care, outlook, environment, finances and relationships. Construct validity was demonstrated, as principal components analysis indicated that the 16 items did indeed reflect these seven domains. Furthermore, the seven domain scores predicted 53% of the variance in global QOL, although the QOLLTI-F Total score predicted less well (43%). The test-retest reliability for the QOLLTI-F Total score was 0.77-0.80 and ranged from 0.50 to 0.79 for the seven domain scores. All QOLLTI-F scores were shown to be significantly different between days the carers considered bad, average and good, demonstrating responsiveness to change, with the exception of the Financial Concerns submeasure, which did not distinguish between average and good days. CONCLUSIONS: QOLLTI-F is unique in that in measuring one person's QOL (the carer's) it includes their perception of the condition of another (the patient). This attests to the close relationship between the two. It is also unique in that its content is derived from a qualitative study asking carers what is important to their own QOL, rather than focusing on the changes or burdens related to caregiving. QOLLTI-F also has the advantage of being briefer than other carer QOL measures. It contains measures of seven different domains that are determinants of carer QOL, in addition to a summary score. All these measures are valid, reliable and responsive to change in QOL.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it