| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
University College London, UK
Correspondence: Professor M. Orrell, Mascalls Park, Mascalls Lane, Brentwood CM14 5HQ, UK. E-mail: m.orrell{at}ucl.ac.uk
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Aims To compare the views of residents with dementia with the views of staff as to their quality of life, and to look at factors associated withthese ratings.
Method The Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL–AD) scale was used to rate residents’and staff’s perceptions of the quality of life of 238 residents of 24 residential homes in the UK.
Results There were 119 QoL–AD scales completed by both
residents and staff. For the residents, high QoL–AD scores strongly
correlated with lower scores for depression (
=-0.53,
P<0.0001) and anxiety (=-0.50, P<0.001). In
contrast, better quality of life as rated by staff correlated most strongly
with increased dependency (=-0.53, P<0.001) and behaviour
problems (=-0.40, P<0.001).
Conclusions The QoL–AD could be used as an effective measure of the quality of life of people with dementia in residential homes. Whereas mood was the main predictor of residents’own assessment of their quality of life, staff ratings were strongly linked with dependency. Staff should be aware that mood rather than level of dependency has a greater impacton residents’ quality of life.
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
The aim of our study was to compare the views of residents with dementia and staff within residential homes about each resident’s quality of life, and to identify factors associated with the resident’s quality of life as rated by the staff and the person with dementia. We predicted that depression in the person with dementia would be the main factor associated with both subjectively rated and staff-rated quality of life.
|
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Procedure
The interviews were undertaken with participants at the residential home
and the instruments were administered by a clinical research team. Information
was obtained through interview, observation and a review of the care home
documentation. The residents and staff members were interviewed separately and
the investigator applied an overall clinical rating where relevant, based on
all the information obtained.
Instruments
Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease
The Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale (QoL–AD;
Logsdon et al, 1999)
measures quality of life in dementia and can be completed by both patient and
caregivers. It contains 13 items, which include domains relevant to physical
and mental health, personal relationships, finances and overall life quality.
Higher scores indicate better quality of life. The QoL–AD scale has been
found to have good reliability and validity and can be used with people with
mild, moderate and severe dementia
(Thorgrimsen et al,
2003; Hoe et al,
2005).
Mini-Mental State Examination
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE;
Folstein et al, 1975)
is a brief test of cognitive function that measures orientation, memory and
attention and is sensitive to change.
Clinical Dementia Rating
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR;
Hughes et al, 1982)
is an investigator-rated global score of severity of dementia graded from 0
for mild to 3 for severe dementia. It comprises six domains: memory;
orientation; judgement and problem-solving; community affairs; home and
hobbies; and personal care.
Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia
The Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia
(Alexopolous et al,
1988) assesses depression in people with dementia by means of 19
items rated on a three-point scale, with a total score of 8 or over indicating
significant depressive symptoms.
Rating Anxiety in Dementia
The Rating Anxiety in Dementia (RAID;
Shankar et al, 1999)
is a brief screening measure comprising 18 items, rated on a three-point
scale. A total score of 11 or over indicates significant anxiety symptoms.
Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly
The Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE;
Orrell & Hancock, 2004) is
a comprehensive measure of need in older people and has high levels of
reliability and validity (Reynolds et
al, 2000; Orrell &
Hancock, 2004). It includes mental and physical health, social and
environmental needs, and identifies whether needs are met or unmet.
Information is collected from patients, carers and professionals. The
investigator makes an overall rating of need.
Challenging Behaviour Scale
The Challenging Behaviour Scale (CBS;
Moniz-Cook et al,
2001) is a 25-item checklist that measures and rates the frequency
and severity of challenging behaviour presented by older people with
dementia.
Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly–Behaviour Rating Scale
The Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly – Behaviour Rating
Scale (CAPE–BRS; Pattie &
Gilleard, 1979) measures behaviour problems and functional ability
and can be used to rate dependency.
Barthel Index
The Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living
(Mahoney & Barthel, 1965)
is designed to measure the individual’s ability to complete various
activities of daily living. The scale provides an indication of low to high
dependency, with higher scores indicating better functional ability.
Analysis
We analysed the data and report descriptive data, relevant associations and
correlations of clinical and demographic data with quality of life ratings.
Where one or two items were missing mean QoL–AD scores were inserted,
because for multidimensional data, person mean methods of imputation give
better results with respect to measures of discrepancy
(Bernaards & Sijtsma,
2000). A multivariate regression analysis was undertaken to
determine predictors of quality of life, as rated by the QoL–AD, using
individual and staff perceptions of residents’ quality of life.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
The mean CDR score was 2.0 (s.d.=0.8). The mean score on the Barthel Index was 63.8 (s.d.=18.5), on the CAPE–BRS it was 16.8 (s.d.=5.2) and on the CBS it was 26.8 (s.d.=30.2). The mean Cornell Scale score was 5.8 (s.d.=5.0) and mean RAID score was 6.1 (s.d.=6.0). The residents had a mean of 12.1 met needs (s.d.=2.6) and 4.4 unmet needs (s.d.=2.6). Only 186 residents had a completed MMSE (mean score 8.7, s.d.=7.8); the rest were either too impaired or refused to complete it.
Quality of life
Overall 123 (52%) residents and 224 (94%) staff were able to complete the
QoL–AD (Table 1). The
residents’ mean QoL–AD score was 33.1 (s.d.=6.9; n=123)
and the staff-rated mean score was 29.9 (s.d.=6.3; n=224). Where one
or two items were missing mean QoL–AD scores were inserted; this was
done for 54 (23%) resident-completed scales and for 132 (56%) staff-completed
scales (Logsdon et al,
2002). Ratings by a further 7 residents (3%) and 14 staff (6%) had
three or more items missing and so these QoL–AD scales were excluded. Of
the 108 (45%) residents who were unable to rate any items of the QoL–AD
scale, 3 residents scored above 10 on the MMSE (3%) and 15 residents scored
between 1 and 10 on the MMSE (14%). The remaining 90 residents either had an
unrecorded score (n=40; 37%) or scored 0 on the MMSE (n=50;
46%).
|
Factors associated with individual- and staff-rated quality of life
The initial analyses only included residents (n=119) for whom both
staff- and self-completed QoL–AD scales were available
(Table 2). Resident ratings of
higher quality of life were significantly correlated with less depressed mood
and less anxiety, fewer unmet needs and more cognitive impairment. The
correlations were then repeated using only the corresponding staff-completed
QoL–AD scales (n=119) (Table
2). Higher staff-rated QoL–AD scores were significantly
associated with less physical disability, less cognitive impairment, fewer
neuropsychiatric symptoms, lower levels of depression and anxiety symptoms and
fewer unmet needs. An additional analysis was undertaken using all the
available staff-rated QoL–AD scales (n=224). Again, there were
highly significant correlations with the CAPE–BRS (–0.47,
P<0.001), Barthel (0.36, P<0.001), CDR (–0.32,
P<0.001), Cornell Scale (–0.32, P<0.001), CBS
(–0.28, P<0.001), MMSE (0.27, P<0.001), RAID
(–0.25, P<0.001) and unmet needs (–0.30,
P<0.001). This highlighted the strong association between staff
perception of residents’ quality of life and level of dependency.
|
Associations between individual and staff perceptions of residents’ quality of life
The QoL–AD scores for residents were compared using only the matched
resident- and staff-completed scales (n=119). The resident-completed
QoL–AD mean score was 33.1 (s.d.=7.0) and the staff-completed mean score
was 30.8 (s.d.=6.4) (Table 3).
The total QoL–AD scores for individual and staff perceptions of
residents’ quality of life were significantly correlated (=0.27,
P<0.005). An item-by-item correlation was then calculated for the
resident- and staff-completed QoL–AD scales but significant correlations
were observed only for the items ‘family’, ‘marriage’,
‘friends’, ‘ability to do things for fun’ and
‘life as a whole’ (Table
3). Although there were similar mean scores for both residents and
staff, for all items the overall level of agreement between ratings measured
by the inter-item correlations (< 0.4) and kappa (<0.4) was low,
indicating a clear discrepancy between staff and resident ratings of each
item.
|
Regression analysis
A multiple linear regression analysis was undertaken to determine which
scales were the best predictors of quality of life. Completed resident- and
staff-rated QoL–AD scores were each used as the dependent variables. The
multiple independent variables included all completed scales for the Barthel,
CAPE–BRS, CBS, Cornell, MMSE, RAID, met need and unmet need. Any scales
with missing items were excluded. Residents’ perception of their quality
of life was significantly predicted by the Cornell (ß=-0.40,
P<0.005) and the RAID (ß=-0.32 P<0.05)
instruments only. This model accounted for 34% of the variance
(F=6.3, P<0.001; adjusted R2=0.28).
For the staff-rated quality of life, the QoL–AD score was only
associated with the CAPE–BRS (ß=-0.59, P<0.001). This
model accounted for 43% of the variance (F=9.5, P<0.001;
adjusted R2=0.39).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
In this study, assuming that only correlations of 0.4 and above can be considered clinically significant (Dunn & Everitt, 1995), only 5 of 13 QoL–AD items of the resident and staff ratings were correlated, none at the level of clinical significance. The kappa coefficients also showed that none of the QoL–AD items was consistently rated the same by both staff and residents. This suggests that staff ratings cannot be assumed to be a suitable proxy for quality of life from the viewpoint of a person with dementia.
The residents’ ratings of their own quality of life were highly associated with symptoms of both depression and anxiety. In contrast, ratings of the residents’ quality of life by staff were clearly associated with level of dependency and behaviour problems. This suggests that staff perception of the residents’ quality of life was most strongly influenced by levels of dependency. Perhaps staff are less likely to see the residents in terms of the resident’s subjective experiences (e.g. mood, pleasant and unpleasant experiences) and more likely to see them as people whose quality of life is determined by disability. The multivariate analysis also showed that the Cornell Scale and the RAID were the only predictors of quality of life as rated by residents. In contrast, the CAPE–BRS was the only predictor for staff ratings of residents’ quality of life. This further suggests that residents’ perception of quality of life is influenced by mood and the staff perception of it is influenced by functional ability.
A number of other studies have investigated the potential predictors of quality of life in people with dementia. Lower levels of depression and higher levels of functional ability, educational level, social contact and activity were found to be related to higher quality of life in dementia (Logsdon et al, 1999; Burgener & Twigg, 2002). Conversely, low quality of life was linked to poor physical health and memory, loss of role, increased boredom and loneliness (Ready et al, 2002; Thorgrimsen et al, 2003). More recent studies have suggested that quality of life in dementia is influenced by mood and environmental factors independent of dementia severity (Thorgrimsen et al, 2003; Hoe et al, 2005).
There have, however, been contradictory findings in studies that used only staff proxy ratings of quality of life when those living in the community and in long-term care institutions were compared. The long-term residents experienced poorer quality of life than community patients (Leon et al, 1998), and low ratings of quality of life by staff were associated with orientation disturbances, physical dependence and anxiolytic treatment (Gonzalez-Salvador et al, 2000). The need for privacy and enjoyment has proved difficult to measure reliably in the more cognitively impaired residents (Kane et al, 2003).
In studies that have investigated carer and individual perceptions of quality of life, the ratings were strongly influenced by the individual’s mood and the caregiver’s experience of caring (Karlawish et al, 2001; Logsdon et al, 2002; Sands et al, 2004). These studies investigated people with mild to moderate dementia living in the community and found that lower ratings of quality of life by the person with dementia were predicted by the presence of depressive symptoms, whereas lower ratings by carers were associated with caregiver depression and burden. A further study that investigated caregiver, staff and individual perceptions of quality of life for people with dementia in institutional care found poor agreement between patient and proxy ratings other than for observable measures of function such as physical health and disability (Novella et al, 2001). The spouse and qualified nursing staff were in closer agreement with the patient’s ratings of quality of life than other family and staff members. Coucill et al (2001) also investigated the quality of life of people with mild to moderate dementia using a modified version of the EuroQol EQ–5D instrument (http://www.euroqol.org) and compared these scores with caregiver and physician ratings. The study found there were differences between the two proxy ratings, and it was unclear who the most appropriate proxy was. Although Coucill concluded that the EQ–5D is suitable for use with this patient population, concerns were raised about the validity of patient self-rating because 91% of self-rated responses accounted for all ceiling responses (Coucill et al, 2001). Similarly, Thorgrimsen et al (2003) found that most people did not report problems in the five domains of the EQ–5D and many found the visual analogue scale difficult to complete; these authors concluded that the QoL–AD was the preferable scale for this patient population.
Limitations of the study were that staff perceptions of residents’ quality of life might have been influenced by the nature of their relationship to the resident, their knowledge of the resident, their knowledge of and attitudes to dementia and staff factors such as stress and job satisfaction. Where possible the keyworker was interviewed, then information was corroborated if necessary by asking a senior care worker or the home manager. By using this method we attempted to obtain a staff rating of the resident’s quality of life from staff who knew the resident well. It is interesting to note that some staff felt unable to complete the QoL–A, finding fewer problems with the other scales. Just over half of the residents in the total sample were able to complete the QoL–AD; many of these had severe dementia. Previous studies have shown that some people with dementia who have an MMSE score as low as 3 can rate the QoL–AD (Thorgrimsen et al, 2003; Hoe et al, 2005). In our study, where there were two or fewer items missing, mean scores were inserted for these items on the QoL–AD; these were predominantly for the items involving family relationships and money. This was usually the result of the resident having no known spouse and family, or lack of knowledge about the resident’s financial circumstances. Of the residents who could not complete the QoL–AD, most had severe dementia, and it may not be the case that these residents would feel the same as residents who could complete this measure.
In conclusion, the QoL–AD was an effective measure of quality of life for many people with dementia in residential homes and was able to reflect perceptions of individuals and their well-being. Future research should consider how the individual’s quality of life changes as the dementia process progresses. It would also be of interest to look at quality of life of residents with dementia compared with residents without dementia who live in the same care homes. As both objective and subjective ratings were included in the scale, further qualitative research could also explore in more depth which factors influence a person with dementia’s quality of life and why such people regard it more positively than their caregivers do.
Despite most having severe dementia, residents’ views of their own quality of life were strongly linked to their mood, suggesting that improving mood would increase quality of life. In contrast, staff related quality of life to dependency and behaviour problems, suggesting that they considered disability to be the most important factor. Care staff and health professionals should be aware that the quality of life of people with dementia in residential homes might primarily relate to their mood in terms of both anxiety and depression. Maximising their enjoyment and enhancing well-being along with the identification and treatment of mood disorders should therefore be prioritised in care plans.
|
|
Clinical Implications and Limitations |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
LIMITATIONS
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONClinical Implications and...ACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM–IV). Washington, DC: APA.
Bernaards, C. S. & Sijtsma, K. (2000) Influence of imputation and EM methods on factor analysis when item nonresponse is nonignorable. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 321 –364.
Brod, M., Stewart, A. L., Sands, L., et al (1999) Conceptualization and measurement of quality of life in dementia: the dementia quality of life instrument (DQOL). Gerontologist, 39, 25 –35.[Abstract]
Burgener, S. & Twigg, P. (2002) Relationships among caregiver factors and quality of life in care recipients with irreversible dementia. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 16, 88 –102.[CrossRef][Medline]
Coucill, W., Bryan, S., Bentham, P., et al (2001) EQ–5D in patients with dementia: an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Medical Care, 39, 760 –771.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dunn, G. & Everitt, B. S. (1995) Clinical Biostatistics: An Introduction to Evidence Based Medicine. London: Edward Arnold.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. & McHugh, P. R. (1975) Mini Mental State. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189 –198.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gonzalez-Salvador, T., Lyketsos, C. G., Baker, A., et al (2000) Quality of life in dementia patients in long-term care. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 181 –189.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hancock, G., Woods, B., Challis, D., et al (2006) Needs of older people with dementia in residential care. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 43 –49.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hoe, J., Katona, C., Roche, B., et al
(2005) Use of the QOL–AD for measuring quality of life
in people with severe dementia – the LASER–AD study.
Age and Ageing, 34, 130
–135.
Hofman, A., Rocca, W. & Brayne, C. (1991) The prevalence of dementia in Europe: a collaborative study of 1980–1990 findings. International Journal of Epidemiology, 20, 734 –748.
Hughes, C. P., Berg, L., Danziger, W. L., et al
(1982) A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia.
British Journal of Psychiatry,
140, 566
–572.
Kane, R. A., Kling, K. C., Bershadsky, B., et al (2003) Quality of life measures for nursing home residents. Journal of Gerontology, 58A, 240 –248.
Karlawish, J. H. T., Casarett, D., Klocinski, J. L., et al (2001) The relationship between caregivers’ global ratings of Alzheimer’s disease patients’ quality of life, disease severity and the caregiving experience. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49, 1066 –1070.[CrossRef][Medline]
Leon, J., Neumann, P. J., Hermann, R. C., et al (1998) A cross-sectional study on the health related quality of life and health service utilization for mild, moderate, and severely impaired Alzheimer’s disease patients. Neurology, 50, A303 .
Logsdon, R. G., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., et al (1999) Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: patient and caregiver reports. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 5, 21 –32.
Logsdon, R. G., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., et al
(2002) Assessing quality of life in older adults with
cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic Medicine,
64, 510
–519.
Macdonald, A. J. D., Carpenter, G. I., Box, O., et al
(2002) Dementia and use of psychotropic medication in
non-‘Elderly Mentally Infirm’ nursing homes in South East England.
Age and Aging, 31, 58
–64.
Mahoney, F. I. & BartheL, D. (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 56 –61.[Medline]
Moniz-Cook, E., Woods, R., Gardiner, E., et al (2001) The Challenging Behaviour Scale (CBS): development of a scale for staff caring for older people in residential and nursing homes. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 309 –322.[CrossRef][Medline]
Novella, J. L., Jochum, C., Morrone, J. D., et al (2001) Agreement between patients’and proxies’ reports of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Quality of Life Research, 10, 443 –452.[CrossRef][Medline]
Orrell, M. & Hancock, G. (2004) CANE: Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly. A Needs Assessment for Older Mental Health Service Users. London: Gaskell.
Pattie, A. H. & Gilleard, C. J. (1979) Manual for the Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly (CAPE). Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton.
Ready, R. E., Ott, B. R., Grace, J., et al (2002) The Cornell–Brown Scale for quality of life in dementia. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 16, 109 –115.[CrossRef][Medline]
Reynolds, T., Thornicroft, G., Abas, M., et al
(2000) Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE):
development, validity and reliability. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 176, 444
–452.
Sands, L. P., Ferreira, M. D., Stewart, A. L., et al
(2004) What explains differences between dementia
patients’and their caregivers’ ratings of patients’ quality
of life? American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry,
12, 272
–280.
Selai, C. E., Trimble, M. R., Rossor, M. N., et al (2001) Assessing quality of life in dementia: preliminary psychometric testing of the quality of life assessment schedule. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 11, 219 –243.[CrossRef]
Shankar, K. K., Walker, M., Frost, D., et al (1999) The development of a valid and reliable scale for rating anxiety in dementia (RAID). Aging and Mental Health, 2, 39 –49.
Thorgrimsen, L., Selwood, A., Spector, A., et al (2003) Whose quality of life is it anyway? The validity and reliability of the quality of life – Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL–AD) scale. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 17, 201 –208.[CrossRef][Medline]
Whitehouse, P. J., Patterson, M. B. & Sami, S. A. (2003) Quality of life in dementia: ten years later. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 17, 199 –200.[CrossRef][Medline]
Received for publication December 18, 2004. Revision received March 30, 2005. Accepted for publication June 1, 2005.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G Livingston, C Cooper, J Woods, A Milne, and C Katona Successful ageing in adversity: the LASER-AD longitudinal study J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, June 1, 2008; 79(6): 641 - 645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
coefficients