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.


Journal

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Historique:
accepted: 18 01 2021
pubmed: 19 2 2021
medline: 24 7 2021
entrez: 18 2 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for informal carers (ASCOT-Carer) can be used to assess long-term care-related quality of life (LTC-QoL) of adult informal carers of persons using LTC services. The ASCOT-Carer instrument has been translated into several languages, but preference weights reflecting the relative importance of different outcome states are only available for England so far. In this paper, we estimated preference weights for the German version of the ASCOT-Carer for Austria and investigated the value people place on different QoL-outcome states. We used data from a best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment and estimated a scale-adjusted multinomial logit (S-MNL) model to elicit preference weights for the ASCOT-Carer domain-levels. Data were collected using an online survey of the Austrian general population (n = 1001). Top levels in the domains of 'Space and time to be yourself', 'Occupation' and 'Control over daily life' were perceived as providing the highest utility, and states with high needs in the same domains seen as particularly undesirable. 'Personal safety' was the only domain where levels were roughly equidistant. In all other domains, the difference between the top two levels ('ideal state' and 'no needs') was very small. The paper provides preference weights for the German version of ASCOT-Carer to be used in Austrian populations. Furthermore, the results give insight into which LTC-QoL-outcomes are seen as particularly (un)desirable, and may therefore help to better tailor services directed at informal carers and the persons they care for.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33598854
doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02775-8
pii: 10.1007/s11136-021-02775-8
pmc: PMC8233248
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1975-1984

Subventions

Organisme : NORFACE Welfare State Futures programme
ID : 462-14-160
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund
ID : I 2252-G16

Références

Value Health. 2019 Dec;22(12):1427-1440
pubmed: 31806200
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan 7;250:112792
pubmed: 32114259
Qual Life Res. 2021 Mar;30(3):905-920
pubmed: 33136242
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Jul 7;15(1):138
pubmed: 28683747
Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):2
pubmed: 26743636
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):46-54
pubmed: 11987441
Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):7-16
pubmed: 11206949
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Oct 21;11:173
pubmed: 24139439
Health Policy. 2014 Oct;118(1):84-94
pubmed: 25132460
PLoS One. 2019 May 21;14(5):e0217016
pubmed: 31112587
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
J Health Econ. 2007 Jan;26(1):171-89
pubmed: 16707175
Health Econ. 2013 Oct;22(10):1230-49
pubmed: 23225741
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Dec;34(12):1195-1209
pubmed: 27402349
Health Econ. 2009 Jun;18(6):681-96
pubmed: 18770875
Qual Life Res. 2015 Nov;24(11):2601-14
pubmed: 26038214
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):451-457
pubmed: 28292490
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):458-68
pubmed: 20924044
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Sep;189:114-128
pubmed: 28797940
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Mar;20(2):205-216
pubmed: 29445941
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):653-64
pubmed: 16765267
Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S27-43
pubmed: 2921885
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;16(4):400-5
pubmed: 11333428
Health Econ. 2003 Jul;12(7):545-51
pubmed: 12825207
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Mar;224:85-93
pubmed: 30771662
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Oct 16;1:54
pubmed: 14613568

Auteurs

Birgit Trukeschitz (B)

Research Institute for Economics of Aging, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, D5, 1020, Vienna, Austria. birgit.trukeschitz@wu.ac.at.

Assma Hajji (A)

Research Institute for Economics of Aging, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, D5, 1020, Vienna, Austria.

Laurie Batchelder (L)

Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.

Eirini Saloniki (E)

Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.

Ismo Linnosmaa (I)

Centre for Health and Social Economics, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.

Juliette Malley (J)

Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH