Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment.
Journal
Social science & medicine (1982)
ISSN: 1873-5347
Titre abrégé: Soc Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8303205
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jan 2020
07 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
18
07
2019
revised:
13
12
2019
accepted:
06
01
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
3
3
2020
entrez:
2
3
2020
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of long-term care (LTC) service provision. Country-specific preference weights are required to calculate ASCOT scores. ASCOT has been translated into German, but lacks preference weights for German-speaking countries. This paper aims to establish Austrian preference weights for the German version of the ASCOT service user measure, using best-worst scaling (BWS). Data were collected using an online BWS-experiment from a general population sample (n=1,000) of Austrian adults. We use a scale-adjusted multinomial logit model (S-MNL) accounting for positioning effects to estimate preference weights. Austrians value the top attribute-levels in the ASCOT domains 'being meaningfully occupied during the day' and 'having control over daily life' most highly, whereas high needs were the least preferred in the domains 'dignity' and 'social participation'. From a methods perspective, we found significant positioning effects only for 'best' choices, with statements at the top of a list being picked more often than those further down in the list. Factors related to survey completion (self-assessed understanding of the tasks and survey completion time) were shown to have the greatest effect on individual choice consistency. The paper provides Austrian preference weights for the German version of ASCOT for service users. The weights also provide insight into how Austrians value different LTC-QoL states. Future research may investigate how values for different LTC-QoL states differ between socioeconomic groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of long-term care (LTC) service provision. Country-specific preference weights are required to calculate ASCOT scores. ASCOT has been translated into German, but lacks preference weights for German-speaking countries.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to establish Austrian preference weights for the German version of the ASCOT service user measure, using best-worst scaling (BWS).
METHODS
METHODS
Data were collected using an online BWS-experiment from a general population sample (n=1,000) of Austrian adults. We use a scale-adjusted multinomial logit model (S-MNL) accounting for positioning effects to estimate preference weights.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Austrians value the top attribute-levels in the ASCOT domains 'being meaningfully occupied during the day' and 'having control over daily life' most highly, whereas high needs were the least preferred in the domains 'dignity' and 'social participation'. From a methods perspective, we found significant positioning effects only for 'best' choices, with statements at the top of a list being picked more often than those further down in the list. Factors related to survey completion (self-assessed understanding of the tasks and survey completion time) were shown to have the greatest effect on individual choice consistency.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The paper provides Austrian preference weights for the German version of ASCOT for service users. The weights also provide insight into how Austrians value different LTC-QoL states. Future research may investigate how values for different LTC-QoL states differ between socioeconomic groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32114259
pii: S0277-9536(20)30011-3
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112792
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
112792Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest None.