IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v353y2024ics0277953624005070.html

One and the same or different? An empirical comparison of aged care recipient and non-aged care recipient preferences for quality of aged care amongst older Australians

Author

Listed:
  • Song, Jia
  • Chen, Gang
  • Khadka, Jyoti
  • Milte, Rachel
  • Ratcliffe, Julie

Abstract

The Quality of Care Experience Aged Care Consumers (QCE-ACC) is a new preference-based instrument recently adopted by the Australian government nationally as a new quality indicator for aged care. This study employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach to develop an aged care user-specific value set for the QCE-ACC instrument. This is crucial for establishing the relative importance of key QCE-ACC dimensions for informing quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care. We further empirically compared the preferences of aged care recipients and non-aged care recipients amongst the older Australian population (65 years and above) for quality of care experience using the QCE-ACC. A total of 201 older people (age 74.2 ± 6.2; 59.7% female) receiving aged care services completed the DCE survey between August and September 2022. The comparison of relative importance indicated some divergence in the preferences between the aged care recipients and non-aged care recipients. Amongst aged care recipients, being treated with “Respect & Dignity” was the most important quality of care experience defining dimension, with “Health & Wellbeing” ranked second and “Skills & Training” (of staff) ranked third. However, within non-aged care recipients, “Skills Training” (of staff) was considered the most important quality of care dimension. Distinction in the QCE-ACC utility weights distributions and mean values were also observed, suggesting that aged care recipients may have different opinions about the quality of aged care compared to those who have not accessed aged care services. The findings shed light on the unique preferences of aged care recipients, indicating that aged care recipients and non-aged care recipients’ preferences for quality of aged care are not interchangeable. The value set developed in this study is specifically tailored for assessing the quality of aged care using the QCE-ACC instrument from the perspective of aged care users in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Song, Jia & Chen, Gang & Khadka, Jyoti & Milte, Rachel & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2024. "One and the same or different? An empirical comparison of aged care recipient and non-aged care recipient preferences for quality of aged care amongst older Australians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 353(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:353:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624005070
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624005070
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Dolan, 2011. "Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1407-1416, December.
    2. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Milad Karimi & Tessa Peasgood & Aki Tsuchiya & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 881-891, July.
    3. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    4. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    5. Rachel Mann & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2009. "A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ‐5D dimensions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 363-372, March.
    6. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Esther de Bekker‐Grob & Elly A. Stolk, 2019. "Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 350-363, March.
    7. Sprangers, Mirjam A. G. & Schwartz, Carolyn E., 1999. "Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(11), pages 1507-1515, June.
    8. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    9. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    10. Menzel, Paul & Dolan, Paul & Richardson, Jeff & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2002. "The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2149-2158, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Milad Karimi & Tessa Peasgood & Aki Tsuchiya & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 881-891, July.
    2. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    3. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    4. Stöckel, Jannis & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2023. "Adaptation in life satisfaction and self-assessed health to disability - Evidence from the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    5. Floortje van Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel van Agthoven & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    6. Touré, Moustapha & Poder, Thomas G., 2024. "Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    7. Patricia Cubi-Molla & Koonal Shah & Kristina Burström, 2018. "Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 253-270, June.
    8. Ava Hoogenboom & Vivian Reckers-Droog & Stefan Lipman & Werner Brouwer, 2026. "Nothing about us, without us? A reflection on and call for involving children in the process of valuing child health," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 27(2), pages 355-362, March.
    9. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    11. de Hond, Anne & Bakx, Pieter & Versteegh, Matthijs, 2019. "Can time heal all wounds? An empirical assessment of adaptation to functional limitations in an older population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 180-187.
    12. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    13. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    14. Yu, Alice & Viney, Rosalie & Goodall, Stephen & Street, Deborah J., 2025. "Can an ‘informed’ general population sample be comparable to a patient sample? A case study of preferences for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    16. Rachel Mann & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2009. "A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ‐5D dimensions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 363-372, March.
    17. Nils Gutacker & Thomas Patton & Koonal Shah & David Parkin, 2020. "Using EQ-5D Data to Measure Hospital Performance: Are General Population Values Distorting Patients’ Choices?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 511-521, May.
    18. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    19. Mukuria, Clara & Brazier, John, 2013. "Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: A secondary analysis of patient data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 97-105.
    20. P. Wang & E. Tai & J. Thumboo & Hubertus Vrijhoef & Nan Luo, 2014. "Does Diabetes Have an Impact on Health-State Utility? A Study of Asians in Singapore," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 329-337, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:353:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624005070. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.