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
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4593026 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Song Jia (0000-0003-4796-3456, Flinders University, corresponding author), Gang Chen (0000-0002-8385-5965, Monash University), Jyoti Khadka (0000-0003-1012-2119, Flinders University), Rachel Milte (0000-0001-7533-6260, Flinders University), Julie Ratcliffe (0000-0001-7365-1988, Flinders University) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 353 |
| Pages | 117054 |
| Publication date | 2024-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Science & Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117054 |
| PMID | 38908090 |
| OpenAlex | W4399661948 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 28 |
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
Aged care · Dignity · Environmental health · Family medicine · Government (linguistics · Health care · Population · Quality (philosophy · Demography · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Gerontology
Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL
Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public
Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations
Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research
Patient and general public preferences for health states
Quality of care experience in aged care
Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states
The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation
AIC and BIC
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |