Skip to main content

Outcomes of social care for adults: Developing a preference weighted measure

Netten, Ann, Burge, Peter, Malley, Juliette, Potoglou, Demetris, Towers, Ann-Marie, Brazier, John, Flynn, Terry, Forder, Julien E., Wall, Beryl (2012) Outcomes of social care for adults: Developing a preference weighted measure. Health Technology Assessment, 16 (16). pp. 1-165. ISSN 1366-5278. (doi:10.3310/hta16160) (KAR id:32443)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English
Download (1MB) Preview
[thumbnail of mon1616.pdf]
Preview
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
Official URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a measure of social care outcome, an equivalent to the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in health, which could be used in a range of circumstances.

Design: The project drew on previous and parallel work developing the Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit and the national Adult Social Care Survey. We developed and tested aninstrument designed to reflect service users’ social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) and tested it with 30 service users from a variety of user groups and 300 older home care service users. In parallel, we explored discrete choice experiment (DCE) and best–worst scaling (BWS) approaches to preference elicitation with 300 members of the general population, and cognitively tested these with service users. We also cognitively tested a computer-aided time trade-off (TTO) exercise using SCRQoL attributes with members of the general population. In the second phase, using the finalised instruments, BWS interviews were conducted with 500 members of the general population, TTO interviews with a follow-up sample of 126 of these respondents, and BWS interviews with 458 people using equipment services.

Main outcome measures: The final measure had eight domains: personal cleanliness and comfort, accommodation cleanliness and comfort, food and drink, safety, social participation and involvement, occupation, control over daily life and dignity. In addition to measuring current SCRQoL, the instrument includes questions used to establish service users’ views of their ‘expected’ SCRQoL in the absence of services. The difference between a person’s current and ‘expected’ SCRQoL provides an indicator of service impact.

Results: There was good evidence for the validity of the descriptive system and the validity of the current, expected and SCRQoL gain scales. The DCE and BWS approaches yielded similar results and, once introductions made clear, were understood by service users. BWS was used for the main stages, as it had technical and cognitive advantages. The computeraided approach to TTO worked well, and respondents found questions acceptable and understandable. There were no substantive differences in the preferences of service users and the general population. The key domain was control over daily life, with the lowest and highest levels strongly estimated in all models. After allowing for observable heterogeneity, service users’ preferences appeared to be more closely associated with their own SCRQoL than with those of the general population. The consistency of the results with the results of a previous study allowed the final model to be based on the preferences of 1000 members of the general population. A formula based on the relationship between TTO and BWS values was estimated for a social care QALY, with ‘0’ equivalent to ‘being dead’ and ‘1’ being the ‘ideal’ SCRQoL state. Members of the population experienced significantly higher SCRQoL than service users.

Conclusions: Although further work is needed, particularly to develop an equivalent measure for informal carers and to explore the links with health QALYs, the measure has considerable potential. A number of methodological advances were achieved, including the first application of TTO in a social care context and use of BWS to establish service user preferences.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.3310/hta16160
Subjects: H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Divisions: Divisions > Division for the Study of Law, Society and Social Justice > School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research > Personal Social Services Research Unit
Depositing User: Jane Dennett
Date Deposited: 13 Dec 2012 13:03 UTC
Last Modified: 16 Nov 2021 10:10 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/32443 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Netten, Ann: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2567-8523
Towers, Ann-Marie: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3597-1061
Forder, Julien E.: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7793-4328
  • Depositors only (login required):