Premium
P‐148: The resource utilization in dementia (RUD) instrument is valid to assess informal care time in dementia
Author(s) -
Wimo Anders,
Jönsson Linus,
Zbrozek Arthur S.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.04.212
Subject(s) - dementia , activities of daily living , intraclass correlation , recall , psychology , gerontology , medicine , physical therapy , clinical psychology , psychometrics , disease , pathology , cognitive psychology
Background: Informal care is a significant component of the societal resource use and costs in dementia care. Thus it is fundamental that assessments of informal care are valid. Objective: This study aimed to analyse the validity of time estimates in the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument in a community setting. Methods: Comparisons between diaries, recall and time observations with agreement statistics. Results: Fourteen married and cohabiting pairs were included, participating in 47 diaries and 30 observation sessions. The agreement between diary time and estimated time was very good for personal ADL (intraclass correlation (ICC) 0.93), good for supervision (ICC 0.87) and total time (ICC 0.91) and lower but acceptable for instrumental ADL (ICC 0.75). Exclusion of outliers with 24 hours of total time estimates in the diaries did not change the ICC figures (PADL 0.94, IADL 0.83, supervision 0.89, total time 0.90). Regarding observed time vs estimated time, the corresponding figures were for personal ADL (ICC 0.81), for instrumental ADL (ICC 0.74), for supervision (ICC 0.78) and for total time (ICC 0.80). Conclusion: Recall, which is the least time demanding method for collecting data on informal care, is with the RUD instrument a valid method to assess the amount of informal care. Assessment of IADL is, however, a bit problematic.