Abstract
AbstractThis study developed Finnish preference weights for the seven-attribute Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer) and investigated survey fatigue and learning in best-worst scaling (BWS) experiments. An online survey that included a BWS experiment using the ASCOT-Carer was completed by a sample from the general population in Finland. A block of eight BWS profiles describing different states from the ASCOT-Carer were randomly assigned to each respondent, who consecutively made four choices (best, worst, second best and second worst) per profile. The analysis panel data had 32,160 choices made by 1005 respondents. A scale multinomial logit (S-MNL) model was used to estimate preference weights for 28 ASCOT-Carer attribute levels. Fatigue and learning effects were examined as scale heterogeneity. Several specifications of the generalised MNL model were employed to ensure the stability of the preference estimates. The most and least-valued states were the top and bottom levels of the control over daily life attribute. The preference weights were not on a cardinal scale. We observed the position effect of the attributes on preferences associated with the best or second-best choices. A learning effect was found. The established preference weights can be used in evaluations of the effects of long-term care services and interventions on the quality of life of service users and caregivers. The learning effect implies a need to develop study designs that ensure equal consideration to all profiles (choice tasks) in a sequential choice experiment.
Funder
NORFACE
Austrian Science Fund
Vienna Social Fund
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare
National Institute for Health and Welfare
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference72 articles.
1. OECD: Informal carers: In: ealth at a Glance 2017: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing (2017)
2. Greve, B. (Ed.): Long-term care for the elderly in Europe: development and prospects (1st ed.). Routledge. (2016). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315592947
3. Barbieri, D., Ghibelli, P. (eds.): Formal versus informal long-term care: economic and social impacts. SPRINT Working Paper D4.4. SPRINT, Brussels (2019). http://sprint-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SPRINT_D4.4_Formal_vs_Informal-LTC_Economic_Social_Impacts.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2019
4. Savage, S., Bailey, S.: The impact of caring on caregivers’ mental health: a review of the literature. Aust. Health Rev. 27, 111–117 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1071/ah042710111
5. Colombo, F., et al.: Help Wanted? OECD Publishing (2011). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264097759-en. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献