IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/110757.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do you prefer safety to social participation? Finnish population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Lien
  • Jokimäki, Hanna
  • Linnosmaa, Ismo
  • Saloniki, Eirini Christina
  • Batchelder, Laurie
  • Malley, Juliette
  • Lu, Hui
  • Burge, Peter
  • Trukeschitz, Birgit
  • Forder, Julien

Abstract

Introduction. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) was developed in England to measure people’s social care–related quality of life (SCRQoL). Objectives. The aim of this article is to estimate preference weights for the Finnish ASCOT for service users (ASCOT). In addition, we tested for learning and fatigue effects in the choice experiment used to elicit the preference weights. Methods. The analysis data (n = 1000 individuals) were obtained from an online survey sample of the Finnish adult general population using gender, age, and region as quotas. The questionnaire included a best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment using ASCOT. Each respondent sequentially selected four alternatives (best, worst; second-best, second-worst) for eight BWS tasks (n = 32,000 choice observations). A scale multinomial logit model was used to estimate the preference parameters and to test for fatigue and learning. Results. The most and least preferred attribute-levels were “I have as much control over my daily life as I want” and “I have no control over my daily life.” The preference weights were not on a cardinal scale. The ordering effect was related to the second-best choices. Learning effect was in the last four tasks. Conclusions. This study has developed a set of preference weights for the ASCOT instrument in Finland, which can be used for investigating outcomes of social care interventions on adult populations. The learning effect calls for the development of study designs that reduce possible bias relating to preference uncertainty at the beginning of sequential BWS tasks. It also supports the adaptation of a modelling strategy in which the sequence of tasks is explicitly modelled as a scale factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Lien & Jokimäki, Hanna & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Saloniki, Eirini Christina & Batchelder, Laurie & Malley, Juliette & Lu, Hui & Burge, Peter & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Forder, Julien, 2021. "Do you prefer safety to social participation? Finnish population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110757, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:110757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110757/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    3. Dana Alkhoury & Jared Atchison & Antonio J. Trujillo & Kimberly Oslin & Katherine P. Frey & Robert V. O’Toole & Renan C. Castillo & Nathan N. O’Hara, 2021. "Can financial payments incentivize short-term smoking cessation in orthopaedic trauma patients? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    5. Vanoutrive, Thomas & Zijlstra, Toon, 2018. "Who has the right to travel during peak hours? On congestion pricing and ‘desirable’ travellers," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 98-107.
    6. Fraeyman, Jessica & Symons, Linda & De Loof, Hans & De Meyer, Guido R.Y. & Remmen, Roy & Beutels, Philippe & Van Hal, Guido, 2015. "Medicine price awareness in chronic patients in Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 217-223.
    7. Juan Marcos Gonzalez, 2019. "A Guide to Measuring and Interpreting Attribute Importance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 287-295, June.
    8. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Koonal Shah & Nick Bansback & Louise Longworth & Rosalie Viney, 2018. "How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 306-318, April.
    9. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    10. Kessels, Roselinde, 2016. "Homogeneous versus heterogeneous designs for stated choice experiments: Ain't homogeneous designs all bad?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 2-9.
    11. LUYTEN, Jeroen & DESMET, Pieter & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2015. "The future’s so bright, I gotta wear sunscreen: Dispositional optimism and preferences for prioritizing health care," Working Papers 2015015, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    12. Pius Krütli & Thomas Rosemann & Kjell Y Törnblom & Timo Smieszek, 2016. "How to Fairly Allocate Scarce Medical Resources: Ethical Argumentation under Scrutiny by Health Professionals and Lay People," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    13. James Buchanan & Laurence S. J. Roope & Liz Morrell & Koen B. Pouwels & Julie V. Robotham & Lucy Abel & Derrick W. Crook & Tim Peto & Christopher C. Butler & A. Sarah Walker & Sarah Wordsworth, 2021. "Preferences for Medical Consultations from Online Providers: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in the United Kingdom," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 521-535, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ASCOT; ASCOT for service users; preference; quality of life; social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL); best-worst scaling (BWS); learning and fatigue effects; scale multinomial logit (S-MNL); Finland; 462-14-160;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • I39 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:110757. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.