title: How important is health status in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older South Australians.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for older adults have traditionally focused on health status. However, there is increasing recognition of the need to develop new instruments to capture quality of life in a broader sense in the face of age-associated increasing frailty and declining health status, particularly in the economic evaluation of aged and social care interventions that may have positive benefits beyond health.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To explore the relative importance of health and broader quality of life domains for defining quality of life from the perspective of older South Australians.
  
  
  METHODS
  Older adults (n=21) from a day rehabilitation facility in Southern Adelaide, South Australia attended one of two audio-recorded focus groups. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) study design was adopted. The study included three main components. First was a general group discussion on quality of life and the factors of importance in defining quality of life. Second was a structured ranking exercise in which individuals were asked to rank domains from the brief Older People's Quality of Life (OPQOL-brief) questionnaire and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in order of importance. Third, participants were asked to self-complete the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D), a measure of health status, and two broader quality-of-life measures: the OPQOL-brief and ASCOT.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean scores on the EQ-5D, OPQOL-brief and ASCOT were 0.71 (standard deviation [SD] 0.20, range 0.06-1.00), 54.6 (SD 5.5, range 38-61) and 0.87 (SD 0.13, range 0.59-1.00), respectively, with higher scores reflecting better ratings. EQ-5D scores were positively associated with OPQOL-brief (Spearman's Rho: 0.730; p<0.01), but not ASCOT. Approximately half (52.4%) of the participants ranked either 'health' or 'psychological and emotional well-being' as the domain most important to their quality of life. However, one-third (33.3%) of the total sample ranked a non-health domain from the ASCOT or OPQOL-brief (safety, dignity, independence) as the most important contributing factor to their overall quality of life. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts supported the high value of both health-related (health, psychological well-being) and social (independence, safety) domains to quality of life.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Older adults value both health and social domains as important to their overall quality of life. Future economic evaluations of health, community and aged-care services for older adults should include assessment of both health-related and broader aspects of quality of life.
authors.affiliation: Flinders University Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Repatriation General Hospital, Daws Road, Daw Park, SA, 5051, Australia.
authors.forename: Catherine M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Milte
authors.forename: Ruth
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Walker
authors.forename: Mary A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Luszcz
authors.forename: Emily
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Lancsar
authors.forename: Billingsley
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kaambwa
authors.forename: Julie
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ratcliffe
mesh_terms: D000203:Activities of Daily Living / Q000523:psychology*; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D017144:Focus Groups; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D007389:Internal-External Control; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D036301:Qualitative Research; D011788:Quality of Life / Q000523:psychology*; D012047:Rehabilitation Centers; D012449:Safety; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D013021:South Australia