IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i11d10.1007_s40273-022-01158-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the Quality-of-Life Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) Instrument for Quality Assessment and Economic Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (Flinders University)

  • Siobhan Bourke

    (The Australian National University)

  • Jinhu Li

    (The Australian National University)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Claire Hutchinson

    (Flinders University)

  • Jyoti Khadka

    (Flinders University)

  • Rachel Milte

    (Flinders University)

  • Emily Lancsar

    (The Australian National University)

Abstract

Objective This paper reports on the valuation of the classification system for the Quality-of-Life Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) instrument using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with duration with a large sample of older people receiving aged care services. Methods A DCE with 160 choice sets of two quality-of-life state–survival duration combinations blocked into 20 survey versions, with eight choice sets in each version, was designed and administered through an on-line survey to older Australians receiving aged care services in home and via interviewer facilitation with older people in residential aged care settings. Model specifications investigating preferences with respect to survival duration and interactions between QOL-ACC dimension levels were estimated. Utility weights were developed, with estimated coefficients transformed to the 0 (being dead) to 1 (full health) scale to generate a value set suitable for application in quality assessment and for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years for use in economic evaluation. Results In total, 953 older people completed the choice experiment with valid responses. The estimation results from econometric model specifications indicated that utility increased with survival duration and decreased according to quality-of-life impairment levels. An Australian value set (range − 0.56 to 1.00) was generated for the calculation of utilities for all QOL-ACC states. Conclusion The QOL-ACC is unique in its focus on measuring and valuing quality of life from the perspective of older people themselves, thereby ensuring that the preferences of aged care service users are the primary focus for quality assessment and economic evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Ratcliffe & Siobhan Bourke & Jinhu Li & Brendan Mulhern & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Emily Lancsar, 2022. "Valuing the Quality-of-Life Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) Instrument for Quality Assessment and Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1069-1079, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01158-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01158-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01158-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01158-2?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenny Cleland & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe, 2019. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 781-801, December.
    2. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    3. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    4. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    5. Catherine Milte & Ruth Walker & Mary Luszcz & Emily Lancsar & Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "How Important Is Health Status in Defining Quality of Life for Older People? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Older South Australians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 73-84, February.
    6. Ole Marten & Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "Implausible States: Prevalence of EQ-5D-5L States in the General Population and Its Effect on Health State Valuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 735-745, August.
    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. Howard, K. & Garvey, G. & Anderson, K. & Dickson, M. & Viney, R. & Ratcliffe, J. & Howell, M. & Gall, A. & Cunningham, J. & Whop, L.J. & Cass, A. & Jaure, A. & Mulhern, B., 2024. "Development of the What Matters 2 Adults (WM2A) wellbeing measure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).

    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. Karen M van Leeuwen & Miriam S van Loon & Fenna A van Nes & Judith E Bosmans & Henrica C W de Vet & Johannes C F Ket & Guy A M Widdershoven & Raymond W J G Ostelo, 2019. "What does quality of life mean to older adults? A thematic synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-39, March.
    2. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2020. "Well-being of Older People (WOOP): Quantitative validation of a new outcome measure for use in economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    3. Himmler, Sebastian & Jonker, Marcel & van Krugten, Frédérique & Hackert, Mariska & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "Estimating an anchored utility tariff for the well-being of older people measure (WOOP) for the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    4. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    5. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    6. Kathryn Hale & Truls Østbye & Bilesha Perera & Robert Bradley & Joanna Maselko, 2019. "A Novel Adaptation of the HOME Inventory for Elders: The Importance of the Home Environment Across the Life Course," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    8. Lidia Engel & Leona Kosowicz & Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Frances Batchelor & Nancy Devlin & Briony Dow & Andrew S. Gilbert & Brendan Mulhern & Tessa Peasgood & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 655-666, November.
    9. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    10. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    11. Carmen M Sarabia-Cobo & Paula Parás-Bravo & Francisco José Amo-Setién & Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero & María Sáenz-Jalón & Blanca Torres-Manrique & Raquel Sarabia-Lavín & Angela Fernández-Rodríguez & Ta, 2017. "Validation of the Spanish Version of the ICECAP-O for Nursing Home Residents with Dementia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    12. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    13. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    14. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    15. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    16. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    17. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    18. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1235-1244, November.
    19. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    20. Erin M Graybill & Peter McMeekin & John Wildman, 2014. "Can Aging in Place Be Cost Effective? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-6, July.

    More about this item

    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:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01158-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.