↓ Skip to main content

Measuring health related quality of life (HRQoL) in community and facility-based care settings with the interRAI assessment instruments: development of a crosswalk to HUI3

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Measuring health related quality of life (HRQoL) in community and facility-based care settings with the interRAI assessment instruments: development of a crosswalk to HUI3
Published in
Quality of Life Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-1800-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P. Hirdes, Julie Bernier, Rochelle Garner, Philippe Finès, Micaela Jantzi

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures are of interest because they can be used to describe health of populations and represent a broader health outcome for population health analyses than mortality rates or life expectancy. The most widely used measure of HRQoL for deriving estimates of health-adjusted life expectancy is the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). The HUI3 is available in most national surveys administered by Statistics Canada, and has been used as part of a microsimulation model to examine the impact of neurological conditions over the life course. Persons receiving home care and nursing home services are often not well-represented in these surveys; however, interRAI assessment instruments are now used as part of normal clinical practice in these settings for nine Canadian provinces/territories. Building on previous research that developed a HUI2 crosswalk for the interRAI assessments, the present study examined a new interRAI HRQoL index crosswalked to the HUI3. interRAI and survey data were used to examine the distributional properties of global and domain-specific interRAI HRQoL and HUI3 index scores, respectively. Three populations were considered: well-elderly persons not receiving home care, home care clients and nursing home residents. The mean HUI3 and interRAI HRQoL index global scores declined from independent healthy older persons to home care clients, followed by nursing home residents. For the home care and nursing home populations, the interRAI HRQoL global estimates tended to be lower than HUI3 global scores obtained from survey respondents. While there were some statistically significant age, sex and diagnostic group differences in global scores and within attributes, the most notable differences were between populations from different care settings. The present study provides strong evidence for the validity of the interRAI HRQoL based on comparisons of distributional properties with those obtained with survey data based on the HUI3. The results demonstrate the importance of admission criteria for home care and nursing home settings, where function plays a more important role than demographic or diagnostic criteria. The interRAI HRQoL has a distinct advantage because it is gathered as part of normal clinical practice in care settings where interRAI instruments are mandatory and are used to assess all eligible persons in those sectors. In particular, those with severe cognitive and functional impairments (who tend to be under-represented in survey data) will be evaluated using the interRAI tools. Future research should build on this work by providing direct, person-level comparisons of interRAI HRQoL index and HUI3 scores, as well as longitudinal analyses to examine responsiveness to change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Psychology 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 37 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,679,432
of 24,666,614 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#813
of 3,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,119
of 454,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#29
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,666,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.