Factor structure and construct validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer)

Background: The ASCOT-Carer is a self-report instrument designed to measure social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL). This article presents the psychometric testing and validation of the ASCOT-Carer four response-level interview (INT4) in a sample of unpaid carers of adults who receive publicly-funded social care services in England. Methods: Unpaid carers were identified through a survey of users of publicly-funded social care services in England. 387 carers completed a face-to-face or telephone interview. Data on variables hypothesised to be related to SCRQoL (for example, characteristics of the carer, cared-for person and care situation) and measures of carer experience, strain, health-related quality of life and overall QoL were collected. Relationships between these variables and overall SCRQoL score were evaluated through correlation, ANOVA and regression analysis to test the construct validity of the scale. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and feasibility by the number of missing responses. Results: The construct validity was supported by statistically significant relationships between SCRQoL and scores on instruments of related constructs, as well as with characteristics of the carer and care recipient in univariate and multivariate analyses. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 (7 items) indicates that the internal reliability of the instrument is satisfactory and a low number of missing responses (<1%) indicates a high level of acceptance. Conclusions: The results provide evidence to support the construct validity, factor structure, internal reliability and feasibility of the ASCOT-Carer INT4 as an instrument for measuring social care-related quality of life of unpaid carers who care for adults with a variety of long-term conditions, disability or problems related to old age

Measuring the outcomes of long-term care for unpaid carers: Comparing the ASCOT-Carer, Carer Experience Scale and EQ-5D-3L

Background: The ASCOT-Carer and Carer Experience Scale are instruments designed to capture aspects of quality of life ‘beyond health’ for family carers. The aim of this study was to compare and validate these two carer care-related measures, with a secondary aim to compare both instruments to the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) measure of health-related quality of life. Methods: An interview survey was conducted with 387 carers of adults who used long-term care (also known as social care) support in England. Construct validity by hypothesis testing was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Exploratory factor analysis was also applied to investigate the dimensionality of the combined items from the ASCOT-Carer and CES (as measures of carer quality of life ‘beyond health’) and the EQ-5D (as a measure of health-related quality of life). Results: In the construct validity analysis, hypothesised differences in correlations were observed with two exceptions. The exploratory factor analysis indicated that the ASCOT-Carer, CES and EQ-5D-3L items loaded onto three separate factors. The first factor comprised the seven ASCOT-Carer items plus two CES items (activities outside caring, support from friends and family). The second factor comprised three of the six CES items (fulfilment from caring, control over caring and getting on with the person you care for). The third factor included four of the five EQ-5D-3L items. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the ASCOT-Carer, CES and EQ-5D-3L capture separate constructs of social care-related quality of life (ASCOT-Carer) and carer experience (CES), which partially overlap in relation to activities outside caring and social support, and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L). The ASCOT-Carer and CES are both promising measures for the evaluation of social care support for carers that capture aspects of quality of life ‘beyond health’. The choice of whether to use the ASCOT-Carer or CES depends on the study objectives

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570