Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/28103
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHawthorne G.en
dc.contributor.authorSkinner E.H.en
dc.contributor.authorDenehy L.en
dc.contributor.authorWarrillow S.en
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-14T09:27:49Zen
dc.date.available2021-05-14T09:27:49Zen
dc.date.copyright2013en
dc.date.created20131119en
dc.date.issued2013-11-20en
dc.identifier.citationCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine. 15 (3) (pp 205-212), 2013. Date of Publication: Sep 2013.en
dc.identifier.issn1441-2772en
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/28103en
dc.description.abstractMultiattribute utility (MAU) instruments are short instruments measuring quality of life, health utility scores and treatment cost-effectiveness. Many studies have compared MAU instruments, but few have involved intensive care unit patients. Our aim was to compare the measurement properties of two MAUs, the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), in a sample of patients with critical illness. Prospective observational study conducted in an 18-bed mixed tertiary Australian ICU. Eligibility criteria were: admitted to the ICU > 48 hours, aged > 18 years, and not imminently at risk of death. Participants completed the AQoL and SF-6D on admission to the ICU as a "then-test" of pre-ICU status, and 6 months after ICU discharge. We assessed the reliability, validity, sensitivity and responsiveness of the instruments. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range [IQR], 49-73 years)], 60% were men, and the median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 17 (IQR, 13-21). Cronbach's alpha was acceptable for the AQoL (alpha = 0.81) but not for the SF-6D (alpha = 0.65). The AQoL and SF-6D showed evidence of validity but, despite moderate agreement between their utilities, their scores were not interchangeable. This was likely due to the SF-6D's truncated scoring range. The AQoL was predictive of hospital readmission but the responsiveness and sensitivity of the instruments varied by clinical condition. The AQoL and SF-6D demonstrated acceptable measurement properties in the ICU population, but the findings raised questions about the reliability and predictive power of the SF-6D. Further research is required to determine the most appropriate instrument for use in measuring health utility in the ICU population.en
dc.languageenen
dc.title205 Comparison of the measurement properties of the AQoL and SF-6D in critical illness.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.affiliationPhysiotherapyen
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Careen
dc.identifier.affiliationAllied Health-
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen
dc.identifier.pubmedid23944207 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23944207]en
dc.identifier.source370253170en
dc.identifier.institution(Skinner) Department of Physiotherapy and Intensive Care, Southern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.en
dc.description.addressE.H. Skinner, Department of Physiotherapy and Intensive Care, Southern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.en
dc.rights.statementMEDLINE is the source for the citation and abstract of this record.en
dc.identifier.affiliationmh(Skinner) Department of Physiotherapy and Intensive Care, Southern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Collections:Articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

8
checked on Jan 20, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.