Do You Prefer Safety to Social Participation? Finnish Population-Based Preference Weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for Service Users.

IF 1.7
MDM policy & practice Pub Date : 2021-07-09 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683211027902
Lien Nguyen, Hanna Jokimäki, Ismo Linnosmaa, Eirini-Christina Saloniki, Laurie Batchelder, Juliette Malley, Hui Lu, Peter Burge, Birgit Trukeschitz, Julien Forder
{"title":"Do You Prefer Safety to Social Participation? Finnish Population-Based Preference Weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for Service Users.","authors":"Lien Nguyen,&nbsp;Hanna Jokimäki,&nbsp;Ismo Linnosmaa,&nbsp;Eirini-Christina Saloniki,&nbsp;Laurie Batchelder,&nbsp;Juliette Malley,&nbsp;Hui Lu,&nbsp;Peter Burge,&nbsp;Birgit Trukeschitz,&nbsp;Julien Forder","doi":"10.1177/23814683211027902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction.</b> The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) was developed in England to measure people's social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL). <b>Objectives.</b> 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. <b>Methods.</b> The analysis data (<i>n</i> = 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 (<i>n</i> = 32,000 choice observations). A scale multinomial logit model was used to estimate the preference parameters and to test for fatigue and learning. <b>Results.</b> 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. <b>Conclusions.</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":520707,"journal":{"name":"MDM policy & practice","volume":" ","pages":"23814683211027902"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/23814683211027902","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM policy & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211027902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比起社会参与,你更喜欢安全吗?针对服务使用者的成人社会护理结果工具包(ASCOT)的芬兰基于人口的偏好权重。
介绍。成人社会关怀结果工具包(ASCOT)是在英格兰开发的,用于测量人们的社会关怀相关生活质量(SCRQoL)。目标。本文的目的是估计芬兰服务用户ASCOT (ASCOT)的偏好权重。此外,我们在选择实验中测试了学习和疲劳效应,用于引出偏好权重。方法。分析数据(n = 1000人)来自芬兰成年普通人群的在线调查样本,使用性别、年龄和地区作为配额。问卷采用ASCOT进行最佳最差评分(BWS)实验。每个受访者依次选择四种选择(最佳,最差;(n = 32,000个选择观察值)。采用尺度多项logit模型来估计偏好参数,并对疲劳和学习进行测试。结果。最受欢迎和最不受欢迎的属性级别是“我可以随心所欲地控制我的日常生活”和“我无法控制我的日常生活”。偏好权重不是在基数尺度上。排序效应与次优选择有关。学习效果表现在后4个任务中。结论。本研究为芬兰的ASCOT工具开发了一套偏好权重,可用于调查社会护理干预对成年人群的结果。学习效应要求研究设计的发展,以减少在顺序BWS任务开始时与偏好不确定性相关的可能偏差。它还支持建模策略的适应,其中任务序列被明确地建模为比例因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信