4.6 Article

Considering the Balance: Development of a Scale to Assess Patient Views on Trade-Offs in Competing Health Outcomes

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 61, Issue 8, Pages 1331-1336

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12358

Keywords

health priorities; decision-making; geriatric assessment and methods; quality of life; comorbidity

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [58381]
  2. Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale University School of Medicine (National Institutes of Health (NIH)) [P30AG21342]
  3. Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale University School of Medicine (National Institute on Aging (NIA)
  4. NIH, NIA [K24 AG028443]
  5. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of a scale assessing participant attitudes regarding two commonly encountered trade-offs: quality versus quantity of life and present versus future health. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and fifty-seven community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: An initial set of 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale of agreement was reduced using principal components analysis. Construct validity was evaluated through comparison of the scale with other tools addressing the same trade-offs and analysis of participant characteristics associated with attitudes favoring quality over quantity of life and present over future health. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: The scale consists of two subscales, each addressing one trade-off, with a total of 10 items. All factor loadings were 0.5 and greater, and subscale scores were significantly different (P <= 05) in the expected directions when comparing with other tools and with participant race, education, and religious identity. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach a 0.85 and 0.84), and test-retest reliability was fair (ICCs 0.63 and 0.47). Sub-scale score medians fell near the middle of each scale, with narrow interquartile ranges, but more than 15% of the sample scored at an extreme of each subscale. CONCLUSION: This new scale captures views on two common trade-offs in health care. Although test-retest reliability was modest, its high validity suggests that this tool can be used to familiarize people with common trade-offs and further explore influences on attitudes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available