IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v353y2024ics0277953624005070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search for a different version of it.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.