Development of Japanese utility weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) SCT4.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:In developed countries, progressive rapid aging is increasing the need for social care. This study aimed to determine Japanese utility weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) four-level self-completion questionnaire (SCT4). METHODS:We recruited 1050 Japanese respondents from the general population, stratified by sex and age, from five major cities. In the best-worst scaling (BWS) phase, respondents ranked various social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) states as "best," "worst," "second-best," or "second-worst," as per the ASCOT. Then, respondents were asked to evaluate eight different SCRQOL states by composite time-trade off (cTTO). A mixed logit model was used to analyze BWS data. The association between cTTO and latent BWS scores was used to estimate a scoring formula that would convert BWS scores to SC-QALY (social care quality-adjusted life year) scores. RESULTS:Japanese BWS weightings for ASCOT-SCT4 were successfully estimated and found generally consistent with the UK utility weights. However, coefficients on level 3 of "Control over daily life" and "Occupation" domains differed markedly between Japan and the UK. The worst Japanese SCRQoL state was lower than that for the UK, as Japanese cTTO results showed more negative valuations. In general, Japanese SC-QALY score (for more than 90% of health states) was lower than that for the UK. CONCLUSIONS:We successfully obtained Japanese utility weights for ASCOT SCT4. This will contribute to the measurement and understanding of social care outcomes.
Project description:Given the increasing number of genetic tests available, decisions have to be made on how to allocate limited health-care resources to them. Different criteria have been proposed to guide priority setting. However, their relative importance is unclear. Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling experiments (BWSs) are methods used to identify and weight various criteria that influence orders of priority. This study tests whether these preference eliciting techniques can be used for prioritising genetic tests and compares the empirical findings resulting from these two approaches. Pilot DCE and BWS questionnaires were developed for the same criteria: prevalence, severity, clinical utility, alternatives to genetic testing available, infrastructure for testing and care established, and urgency of care. Interview-style experiments were carried out among different genetics professionals (mainly clinical geneticists, researchers and biologists). A total of 31 respondents completed the DCE and 26 completed the BWS experiment. Weights for the levels of the six attributes were estimated by conditional logit models. Although the results derived from the DCE and BWS experiments differed in detail, we found similar valuation patterns in the DCE and BWS experiments. The respondents attached greatest value to tests with high clinical utility (defined by the availability of treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity) and to testing for highly prevalent conditions. The findings from this study exemplify how decision makers can use quantitative preference eliciting methods to measure aggregated preferences in order to prioritise alternative clinical interventions. Further research is necessary to confirm the survey results.
Project description:Best-worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS.A systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (?2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further.A total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders.Use of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods.
Project description:Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments are sometimes used without explicit understanding of which HRQOL domains are important to a given population. In this study, we sought to elicit an importance hierarchy among 27 HRQOL domains (derived from the general population) via a best-worst scaling survey of the population in Singapore, and to determine whether these domains were consistently valued across gender, age, ethnicity, and presence of chronic illnesses. We conducted a community-based study that sampled participants with quotas for gender, ethnicity, age, presence of chronic illness, and interview language. For the best-worst scaling exercise, we constructed comparison sets according to a balanced incomplete block design resulting in 13 sets of questions, each with nine choice tasks. Each task involved three HRQOL domains from which participants identified the most and least important domain. We performed a standard analysis of best-worst object scaling design (Case 1) using simple summary statistics; 603 residents participated in the survey. The three most important domains of health were: "the ability to take care of self without help from others" (best-worst score (BWS): 636), "healing and resistance to illness" (BWS: 461), and "having good relationships with family, friends, and others" (BWS: 373). The 10 top-ranked domains included physical, mental, and social health. The three least important domains were: "having a satisfying sex life" (BWS: -803), "having normal physical appearance" (BWS: -461), and "interacting with others (talking, shared activities, etc.)" (BWS: -444). Generally, top-ranked domains were consistently valued across gender, age, ethnicity, and presence of chronic illness. We conclude that the 10 top-ranked domains reflect physical, mental, and social dimensions of well-being suggesting that the sampled population's views on health are consistent with the World Health Organization's definition of health, "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".
Project description:The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT-SCT4) is a multi-attribute utility index designed for the evaluation of long-term social care services. The measure comprises eight attributes that capture aspects of social care-related quality of life. The instrument has previously been validated with a sample of older adults who used home care services in England. This paper aims to demonstrate the instrument's test-retest reliability and provide evidence for its validity in a diverse sample of adults who use publicly-funded, community-based social care in England.A survey of 770 social care service users was conducted in England. A subsample of 100 services users participated in a follow-up interview between 7 and 21 days after baseline. Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the ASCOT-SCT4 index score and the EQ-5D-3 L, the ICECAP-A or ICECAP-O and overall quality of life were used to assess convergent validity. Data on variables hypothesised to be related to the ASCOT-SCT4 index score, as well as rating of individual attributes, were also collected. Hypothesised relationships were tested using one-way ANOVA or Fisher's exact test. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient for the ASCOT-SCT4 index score at baseline and follow-up.There were moderate to strong correlations between the ASCOT-SCT4 index and EQ-5D-3 L, the ICECAP-A or ICECAP-O, and overall quality of life (all correlations ≥ 0.3). The construct validity was further supported by statistically significant hypothesised relationships between the ASCOT-SCT4 index and individual characteristics in univariate and multivariate analysis. There was also further evidence for the construct validity for the revised Food and drink and Dignity items. The test-retest reliability was considered to be good (ICC = 0.783; 95% CI: 0.678-0.857).The ASCOT-SCT4 index has good test-retest reliability for adults with physical or sensory disabilities who use social care services. The index score and the attributes appear to be valid for adults receiving social care for support reasons connected to underlying mental health problems, and physical or sensory disabilities. Further reliability testing with a wider sample of social care users is warranted, as is further exploration of the relationship between the ASCOT-SCT4, ICECAP-A/O and EQ-5D-3 L indices.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To quantitatively evaluate parental preferences for the various treatments for vesicoureteral reflux using crowd-sourced best-worst scaling, a novel technique in urologic preference estimation. METHODS:Preference data were collected from a community sample of parents via 2 best-worst scaling survey instruments published to Amazon's Mechanical Turk online community. Attributes and attribute levels were selected following extensive review of the reflux literature. Respondents completed an object case best-worst scaling exercise to prioritize general aspects of reflux treatments and multiprofile case best-worst scaling to elicit their preferences for the specific differences in reflux treatments. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Results from the object-case provided probability scaled values (PSV) that reflected the order of importance of attributes. RESULTS:We analyzed data for 248 and 228 respondents for object and multiprofile case BWS, respectively. When prioritizing general aspects of reflux treatment, effectiveness (PSV?=?20.37), risk of future urinary tract infection (PSV?=?14.85), and complication rate (PSV?=?14.55) were most important to parents. Societal cost (PSV?=?1.41), length of hospitalization (PSV?=?1.09), and cosmesis (PSV?=?0.91) were least important. Parents perceived no difference in preference for the cosmetic outcome of open vs minimally invasive surgery (P?=?.791). Bundling attribute preference weights, parents in our study would choose open surgery 74.9% of the time. CONCLUSION:High treatment effectiveness was the most important and preferred attribute to parents. Alternatively, cost and cosmesis were among the least important. Our findings serve to inform shared parent-physician decision-making for vesicoureteral reflux.
Project description:This paper reports the results of a best-worst scaling (BWS) study to value the Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A), a new capability measure among adults, in a UK setting. A main effects plan plus its foldover was used to estimate weights for each of the four levels of all five attributes. The BWS study was administered to 413 randomly sampled individuals, together with sociodemographic and other questions. Scale-adjusted latent class analyses identified two preference and two (variance) scale classes. Ability to characterize preference and scale heterogeneity was limited, but data quality was good, and the final model exhibited a high pseudo-r-squared. After adjusting for heterogeneity, a population tariff was estimated. This showed that 'attachment' and 'stability' each account for around 22% of the space, and 'autonomy', 'achievement' and 'enjoyment' account for around 18% each. Across all attributes, greater value was placed on the difference between the lowest levels of capability than between the highest. This tariff will enable ICECAP-A to be used in economic evaluation both within the field of health and across public policy generally.
Project description:U.S. residents' perceptions of the impact of prominent animal welfare and veterinary care organizations on pet animal well-being and health care may not be linked to the organization's stated mission and effectiveness in advancing it, but to the level of recognition people have for the groups. An online survey of 1000 U.S. residents was used to understand the perceived impact of organizations with self-stated dedication to pet animal well-being. Using a Likert-scale, respondents ranked 13 prominent organizations as having a low to high impact on pet animal well-being and health care. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) had the highest perceived average impact, while People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) had the lowest. A best-worst scaling (BWS) choice experiment was conducted with 7 of the initial 13 organizations to elicit relative rankings by forcing tradeoffs by respondents. Consistent with the Likert-scale results, the ASPCA was ranked as the most impactful organization. The ASPCA's perceived impact on pet animal well-being and health care may be linked to their high level of recognition among respondents, as this was the organization that respondents most frequently reported having seen/heard stories related to animal well-being and health care.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To measure relative preferences for outcomes of integrated care of patients with multimorbidity from eight European countries and compare them to the preferences of other stakeholders within these countries. DESIGN:A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in each country, asking respondents to choose between two integrated care programmes for persons with multimorbidity. SETTING:Preference data collected in Austria (AT), Croatia (HR), Germany (DE), Hungary (HU), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Spain (ES), and UK. PARTICIPANTS:Patients with multimorbidity, partners and other informal caregivers, professionals, payers and policymakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Preferences of participants regarding outcomes of integrated care described as health/well-being, experience with care and cost outcomes, that is, physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centredness, continuity of care and total costs. Each outcome had three levels of performance. RESULTS:5122 respondents completed the DCE. In all countries, patients with multimorbidity, as well as most other stakeholder groups, assigned the (second) highest preference to enjoyment of life. The patients top-three most frequently included physical functioning, psychological well-being and continuity of care. Continuity of care also entered the top-three of professionals, payers and policymakers in four countries (AT, DE, HR and HU). Of the five stakeholder groups, preferences of professionals differed most often from preferences of patients. Professionals assigned lower weights to physical functioning in AT, DE, ES, NL and NO and higher weights to person-centredness in AT, DE, ES and HU. Payers and policymakers assigned higher weights than patients to costs, but these weights were relatively low. CONCLUSION:The well-being outcome enjoyment of life is the most important outcome of integrated care in multimorbidity. This calls for a greater involvement of social and mental care providers. The difference in opinion between patients and professionals calls for shared decision-making, whereby efforts to improve well-being and person-centredness should not divert attention from improving physical functioning.
Project description:BACKGROUND: There has been slow uptake of isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) among people living with HIV (PLWH).METHODS: We surveyed adults recently diagnosed with HIV in 14 South African primary health clinics. Based on the literature and qualitative interviews, sixteen potential barriers and facilitators related to preventive therapy among PLWH were selected. Best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to quantify the relative importance of the attributes. BWS scores were calculated based on the frequency of participants' selecting each attribute as the best or worst among six options (across multiple choice sets) and rescaled from 0 (always selected as worst) to 100 (always selected as best) and compared by currently receiving IPT or not.RESULTS: Among 342 patients surveyed, 33% (n = 114) were currently taking IPT. Having the same standard of life as someone without HIV was most highly prioritized (BWS score = 67.3, SE = 0.6), followed by trust in healthcare providers (score, 66.3 ± 0.6). Poor standard of care in public clinics (score, 30.6 ± 0.6) and side effects of medications (score, 33.7 ± 0.6) were least prioritized. BWS scores differed by IPT status for few attributes, but overall ranking was similar (spearman's rho = 0.9).CONCLUSION: Perceived benefits of preventive therapy were high among PLWH. IPT prescription by healthcare providers should be encouraged to enhance IPT uptake among PLWH.
Project description:Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking.To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane.The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual.Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.