• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Quality of life outcomes for informal carers of long-term care service users in Austria, England and Finland.奥地利、英国和芬兰长期护理服务使用者的非正式照护者的生活质量结果。
Qual Life Res. 2024 Sep;33(9):2477-2488. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03711-2. Epub 2024 Jun 22.
2
Translation, cultural adaptation and construct validity of the German version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for informal Carers (German ASCOT-Carer).将德文版《成人社会护理成果工具包(德文版 ASCOT-Carer)》翻译、文化适应性调整和构建效度的研究。
Qual Life Res. 2021 Mar;30(3):905-920. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02682-4. Epub 2020 Nov 2.
3
Factor structure and construct validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer).照顾者成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT-Carer)的因子结构与结构效度。
Qual Life Res. 2015 Nov;24(11):2601-14. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1011-x. Epub 2015 Jun 3.
4
What's important when caring for a loved one? Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for informal carers (ASCOT-Carer) for Austria.照顾亲人时最重要的是什么?基于人群的奥地利非正式照护者成人社会关怀结局工具包(ASCOT-Carer)的偏好权重。
Qual Life Res. 2021 Jul;30(7):1975-1984. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02775-8. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
5
Carer Social Care-Related Quality of Life Outcomes: Estimating English Preference Weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers.照顾者的社会关怀相关生活质量结果:估计成人社会关怀结果工具包对照顾者的英语偏好权重。
Value Health. 2019 Dec;22(12):1427-1440. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.07.014. Epub 2019 Nov 14.
6
Social care-related quality of life of people with dementia and their carers in England.英格兰痴呆症患者及其照护者的与社会关怀相关的生活质量。
Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Sep;30(5):e2406-e2418. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13681. Epub 2021 Dec 17.
7
Caring for a Person With Dementia on the Margins of Long-Term Care: A Perspective on Burden From 8 European Countries.长期护理边缘的痴呆症患者护理:来自 8 个欧洲国家的负担视角。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;18(11):967-973.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.06.004. Epub 2017 Jul 18.
8
Feasibility, validity and reliability of the ASCOT-Proxy and ASCOT-Carer among unpaid carers of people living with dementia in England.英国痴呆症患者非付费照顾者中 ASCOT-Proxy 和 ASCOT-Carer 的可行性、有效性和可靠性。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023 Jun 3;21(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02122-0.
9
Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure.成人社会关怀结局:偏好加权测量的发展。
Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1-166. doi: 10.3310/hta16160.
10
Are reasons for care-giving related to carers' care-related quality of life and strain? Evidence from a survey of carers in England.照顾的原因与照顾者的照顾相关生活质量和压力有关吗?来自英格兰照顾者调查的证据。
Health Soc Care Community. 2019 Jan;27(1):151-160. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12634. Epub 2018 Jul 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Use of the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) in research studies: an international scoping review.成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT)在研究中的应用:一项国际范围综述
Qual Life Res. 2025 Apr 18. doi: 10.1007/s11136-025-03958-3.

本文引用的文献

1
Valuing informal carers' quality of life using best-worst scaling-Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer).采用最佳最差标度法评估非正规护工的生活质量——针对护工的成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT-Carer)的芬兰偏好权重。
Eur J Health Econ. 2022 Apr;23(3):357-374. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01356-3. Epub 2021 Sep 1.
2
What's important when caring for a loved one? Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for informal carers (ASCOT-Carer) for Austria.照顾亲人时最重要的是什么?基于人群的奥地利非正式照护者成人社会关怀结局工具包(ASCOT-Carer)的偏好权重。
Qual Life Res. 2021 Jul;30(7):1975-1984. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02775-8. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
3
Translation, cultural adaptation and construct validity of the German version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for informal Carers (German ASCOT-Carer).将德文版《成人社会护理成果工具包(德文版 ASCOT-Carer)》翻译、文化适应性调整和构建效度的研究。
Qual Life Res. 2021 Mar;30(3):905-920. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02682-4. Epub 2020 Nov 2.
4
A performance comparison of patient pathways in Nordic capital areas - a pilot study for ischaemic stroke patients.北欧首都地区患者路径的绩效比较——缺血性脑卒中患者的试点研究。
Scand J Public Health. 2020 May;48(3):275-288. doi: 10.1177/1403494819863523. Epub 2020 Jan 9.
5
Carer Social Care-Related Quality of Life Outcomes: Estimating English Preference Weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers.照顾者的社会关怀相关生活质量结果:估计成人社会关怀结果工具包对照顾者的英语偏好权重。
Value Health. 2019 Dec;22(12):1427-1440. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.07.014. Epub 2019 Nov 14.
6
What is the relationship between the quality of care experience and quality of life outcomes? Some evidence from long-term home care in England.医护体验质量与生活质量结果之间存在何种关系?来自英国长期居家护理的一些证据。
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Dec;243:112635. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112635. Epub 2019 Oct 23.
7
The impact of long-term care on quality of life.长期护理对生活质量的影响。
Health Econ. 2018 Mar;27(3):e43-e58. doi: 10.1002/hec.3612. Epub 2017 Nov 3.
8
Costs and Quality at the Hospital Level in the Nordic Countries.北欧国家医院层面的成本与质量
Health Econ. 2015 Dec;24 Suppl 2:140-63. doi: 10.1002/hec.3260.
9
Towards Explaining International Differences in Health Care Performance: Results of the EuroHOPE Project.解释医疗保健绩效的国际差异:欧洲健康结果预测项目的成果
Health Econ. 2015 Dec;24 Suppl 2:1-4. doi: 10.1002/hec.3282.
10
Factor structure and construct validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer).照顾者成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT-Carer)的因子结构与结构效度。
Qual Life Res. 2015 Nov;24(11):2601-14. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1011-x. Epub 2015 Jun 3.

奥地利、英国和芬兰长期护理服务使用者的非正式照护者的生活质量结果。

Quality of life outcomes for informal carers of long-term care service users in Austria, England and Finland.

机构信息

Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.

Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 2024 Sep;33(9):2477-2488. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03711-2. Epub 2024 Jun 22.

DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03711-2
PMID:38907830
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390848/
Abstract

PURPOSE

The provision and funding of long-term care (LTC) for older people varies between European countries. Despite differences, there is limited information about the comparative performance of LTC systems in Europe. In this study, we compared quality of life (QoL) of informal carers of home care service users in Austria, England and Finland.

METHODS

Informal carers were surveyed in Austria, England and Finland. The study data (n = 835) contained information on social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) associated with the ASCOT-Carer measure, and characteristics of carers and care recipients from each country. We applied risk-adjustment methods using a fractional regression model to produce risk-adjusted SCRQoL scores for the comparative analysis. In a sensitivity analysis, we applied multiple imputation to missing data to validate our findings.

RESULTS

We found that the mean values of the risk-adjusted SCRQoL of informal carers in England were 1.4-2.9% and 0.3-0.5% higher than in Finland and Austria, and the mean values of the risk-adjusted SCRQoL of carers in Austria were 0.8-2.7% higher than in Finland. Differences in the mean values of the country-specific risk-adjusted SCRQoL scores were small and statistically non-significant. English informal carers were less healthy and co-resided with care resipients more often than carers in Austria or Finland.

CONCLUSION

Small differences between the risk-adjusted SCRQoL scores between Austria, England and Finland are consistent with the observation that the countries provide different types of support for informal carers. Our results help local and national decision-makers in these countries to benchmark their informal care support systems.

摘要

目的

欧洲各国在老年人长期护理(LTC)的提供和资金方面存在差异。尽管存在差异,但有关欧洲 LTC 系统比较绩效的信息有限。在这项研究中,我们比较了奥地利、英国和芬兰家庭护理服务使用者的非正式照顾者的生活质量(QoL)。

方法

在奥地利、英国和芬兰对非正式照顾者进行了调查。该研究数据(n=835)包含了与 ASCOT-Carer 衡量标准相关的社会护理相关生活质量(SCRQoL)信息,以及来自每个国家的照顾者和照顾接受者的特征。我们使用分数回归模型应用风险调整方法,为比较分析生成风险调整后的 SCRQoL 评分。在敏感性分析中,我们应用多重插补处理缺失数据,以验证我们的发现。

结果

我们发现,英国风险调整后的 SCRQoL 的非正式照顾者的平均值比芬兰和奥地利高 1.4-2.9%和 0.3-0.5%,而奥地利风险调整后的 SCRQoL 的照顾者的平均值比芬兰高 0.8-2.7%。国家特定风险调整后 SCRQoL 得分的平均值差异较小且统计学上无显著性。与奥地利或芬兰的照顾者相比,英国的非正式照顾者健康状况较差,且更经常与照顾接受者共同居住。

结论

奥地利、英国和芬兰的风险调整后 SCRQoL 评分之间的微小差异与这些国家为非正式照顾者提供不同类型支持的观察结果一致。我们的研究结果有助于这些国家的地方和国家决策者对其非正式护理支持系统进行基准测试。