Loneliness, cumulative inequality and social capital in later life: Two stories

The potential impact of cumulative inequality upon loneliness in later life is under-researched. This study applies Ferraro and Shippee’s axioms of cumulative inequality to the narratives of two Northern Irish older women, who completed semi-structured diary entries over a 16-week period, recording and reflecting on their social lives and their personal histories. The two women were subsequently interviewed on the basis of what they had recorded. These stories reveal how the life trajectories of these two individuals are influenced by the different experiential impact of bonding and bridging social capital. Despite similar life experiences, significant and substantial differences emerged in the women’s stories, relating to work life, social class, the restrictions of a caring role, and physical and mental health. These two narratives not only provide evidence of the impact of cumulative inequality on loneliness but also highlight the lifetime impact of socio-economic status and access to capital affecting older women’s vulnerability to loneliness

Developing a proxy version of the Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT)

Background: Social care-related quality of life is a key outcome indicator used in the evaluation of social care interventions and policy. It is not, however, always possible to collect quality of life data by self-report even with adaptations for people with cognitive or communication impairments. A new proxy-report version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measure of social care-related quality of life was developed to address the issues of wider inclusion of people with cognitive or communication difficulties who may otherwise be systematically excluded. The development of the proxy-report ASCOT questionnaire was informed by literature review and earlier work that identified the key issues and challenges associated with proxy-reported outcomes. Methods: To evaluate the acceptability and content validity of the ASCOT-Proxy, qualitative cognitive interviews were conducted with unpaid carers or care workers of people with cognitive or communication impairments. The proxy respondents were invited to ‘think aloud’ while completing the questionnaire. Follow-up probes were asked to elicit further detail of the respondent’s comprehension of the format, layout and content of each item and also how they weighed up the options to formulate a response. Results: A total of 25 unpaid carers and care workers participated in three iterative rounds of cognitive interviews. The findings indicate that the items were well-understood and the concepts were consistent with the item definitions for the standard self-completion version of ASCOT with minor modifications to the draft ASCOT-Proxy. The ASCOT-Proxy allows respondents to rate the proxy-proxy and proxy-patient perspectives, which improved the acceptability of proxy report. Conclusions: A new proxy-report version of ASCOT was developed with evidence of its qualitative content validity and acceptability. The ASCOT-Proxy is ready for empirical testing of its suitability for data collection as a self-completion and/or interview questionnaire, and also evaluation of its psychometric properties

Developing a proxy version of the Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT)

Background: Social care-related quality of life is a key outcome indicator used in the evaluation of social care interventions and policy. It is not, however, always possible to collect quality of life data by self-report even with adaptations for people with cognitive or communication impairments. A new proxy-report version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measure of social care-related quality of life was developed to address the issues of wider inclusion of people with cognitive or communication difficulties who may otherwise be systematically excluded. The development of the proxy-report ASCOT questionnaire was informed by literature review and earlier work that identified the key issues and challenges associated with proxy-reported outcomes. Methods: To evaluate the acceptability and content validity of the ASCOT-Proxy, qualitative cognitive interviews were conducted with unpaid carers or care workers of people with cognitive or communication impairments. The proxy respondents were invited to ‘think aloud’ while completing the questionnaire. Follow-up probes were asked to elicit further detail of the respondent’s comprehension of the format, layout and content of each item and also how they weighed up the options to formulate a response. Results: A total of 25 unpaid carers and care workers participated in three iterative rounds of cognitive interviews. The findings indicate that the items were well-understood and the concepts were consistent with the item definitions for the standard self-completion version of ASCOT with minor modifications to the draft ASCOT-Proxy. The ASCOT-Proxy allows respondents to rate the proxy-proxy and proxy-patient perspectives, which improved the acceptability of proxy report. Conclusions: A new proxy-report version of ASCOT was developed with evidence of its qualitative content validity and acceptability. The ASCOT-Proxy is ready for empirical testing of its suitability for data collection as a self-completion and/or interview questionnaire, and also evaluation of its psychometric properties

Exploring the views of being a proxy from the perspective of unpaid carers and paid carers: developing a proxy version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)

Background: Outcomes-based policy and administration of public services present a compelling argument for the value of outcomes data. However, there are a number of challenges inherent in collecting these data from people who are unable to complete a paper-based survey or interview due to cognitive or communication impairments. In this paper, we explore the views of being a proxy from the perspective of unpaid carers and paid carers who may be asked to act as a proxy on behalf of the person(s) they care for. We consider the key issues that need to be addressed when adapting an instrument designed to measure social care outcomes, the Adult Social Care Outcomes Tool (ASCOT), into a proxy-report tool. Methods: Participants took part in either a focus group (35 paid carers in eight focus groups), or a one-to-one interview (eight unpaid carers). All participants were recruited via carer organisations and care providers. Transcripts, field notes and audio data collected during focus groups and interviews were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Results: Participants agreed that any person acting as a proxy would need to be very familiar with the care recipient, as well as their needs and care provision. A number of provisions for proxy respondents were proposed to improve face validity and acceptability of completing a questionnaire by proxy, and to ensure that any potential bias is reduced in the design of the questionnaire. These included: providing two sets of response options for each proxy perspective (the proxy themselves and the proxy view of how they think the care recipient would respond); a comments box to help people explain why they have selected a given response option (especially where these indicate unmet need); and providing clear guidance for the proxy respondent on how they should complete the questionnaire. Conclusions: This study has shown some of the challenges involved in assessing outcomes by proxy and explored some potential ways these can be mitigated. The findings highlight the benefits of developing and testing proxy measures in a robust way to widen participation in social care research

The development of a core outcome set for trials and evaluative studies in adult social care

Context: Core outcome sets that help to harmonise results across studies have had a major impact on clinical research and policymaking. However, it is less developed in social care research. Objectives: We aimed to explore feasibility and identify a set of domains that would comprise a core outcome set for adult social care research and specific measures to assess these domains. Methods: We identified core domains through a scoping review. A panel was recruited to participate in two surveys. In the first survey, participants scrutinised the approach and the proposed domains; based on which, domains were refined. Outcome measures were then identified for each domain. In the second survey, the panel provided their views on domains and measures. Findings: Of 30 individuals approached, 25 participated in the first survey and 19 in the second. The first survey revealed that the majority (20/25) were supportive of the overall approach. Of seven domains proposed initially, six (well-being, health-related quality of life, functional ability, experience with ser-vices, service use and costs, and carers’ perspectives) were retained and one (psychological well-being) was merged with the well-being domain. Based on available evidence, we recommended specific measures for four domains and highlighted potentially relevant resources for the other two domains. In the second survey, majority of the panel (i.e. over 70%) agreed with the domains and recommendations on measures. Implications: This study has shown that it is feasible to progress the idea of a core outcome set that might inform and guide future social care research