Quantifying Long-Term Care Preferences

被引:42
作者
Guo, Jing [1 ]
Konetzka, R. Tamara [2 ]
Magett, Elizabeth [3 ]
Dale, William [3 ]
机构
[1] Amer Inst Res, Washington, DC 20007 USA
[2] Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[3] Univ Chicago, Dept Med, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
关键词
long-term care; preference; quality of life; time tradeoff; cost-effectiveness analysis; TIME TRADE-OFF; JOINT HEALTH STATES; COMMUNITY RESIDENTS; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; PROSTATE-CANCER; OLDER-ADULTS; ARRANGEMENTS; SERVICES; HOME;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X14551641
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Current policies redirecting long-term care (LTC) delivery away from institutional care to home- and community-based services are being made in the absence of crucial evidence on preferences. Studies indicate that the shift to home care is generally not cost-saving; thus, an empirical assessment of effectiveness is needed to evaluate policies incenting home care investment. This study quantifies LTC preferences between different delivery modes. Design. This study extended the time tradeoff method to elicit utilities and LTC preferences associated with the receipt of different modes of LTC services, conditional on health states defined by varying levels of functional and cognitive impairment. Users' LTC preferences are measured as differential utilities between alternative LTC options for each health state. Results. For the same health state, respondents (n = 81) significantly preferred home care over institutional care, except for the most impaired health state. The preference for home care over institutional care is quantified as 0.30 quality-of-life (QOL) weight when people need help with only 1 activity of daily living (ADL). The preference for home care depends significantly on levels of disability and was weaker once the need for help became greater. Under the most severe health state of having moderate to severe dementia and needing help with 6 ADLs, the quantified home care preference was only 0.03 QOL weight and was not statistically significant. Limitations. Because the sample is mostly composed of African Americans, the results may not be generalizable to other racial and ethnic groups. Conclusions. People do not always strongly prefer home care over institutional care, as is often assumed. The costs of expanding home- and community-based care should be weighed against these preferences.
引用
收藏
页码:106 / 113
页数:8
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, COST EFFECTIVENESS H
[2]   ELDERLY COMMUNITY RESIDENTS REACTIONS TO THE NURSING-HOME - AN ANALYSIS OF NURSING HOME-RELATED BELIEFS [J].
BIEDENHARN, PJ ;
NORMOYLE, JB .
GERONTOLOGIST, 1991, 31 (01) :107-115
[3]   A consistency test of the time trade-off [J].
Bleichrodt, H ;
Pinto, JL ;
Abellan-Perpiñan, JM .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2003, 22 (06) :1037-1052
[4]   A theoretical framework for TTO valuations of health [J].
Buckingham, Ken ;
Devlin, Nancy .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2006, 15 (10) :1149-1154
[5]   Preferences for home vs hospital care among low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia [J].
Coley, CM ;
Li, YH ;
Medsger, AR ;
Marrie, TJ ;
Fine, MJ ;
Kapoor, WN ;
Lave, JR ;
Detsky, AS ;
Weinstein, MC ;
Singer, DE .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1996, 156 (14) :1565-1571
[6]  
Craig Benjamin M, 2009, Med Care, V47, P634, DOI 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819432ba
[7]   Predicting utility ratings for joint health states from single health states in prostate cancer: Empirical testing of 3 alternative theories [J].
Dale, William ;
Basu, Anirban ;
Elstein, Arthur ;
Meltzer, David .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2008, 28 (01) :102-112
[8]   The Prevalence, Correlates, and Impact of Logically Inconsistent Preferences in Utility Assessments for Joint Health States in Prostate Cancer [J].
Dale, William ;
Bilir, S. Pinar ;
Hemmerich, Joshua ;
Basu, Anirban ;
Elstein, Arthur ;
Meltzer, David .
MEDICAL CARE, 2011, 49 (01) :59-66
[9]   Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation [J].
Doctor, Jason N. ;
Bleichrodt, Han ;
Lin, H. Jill .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2010, 30 (01) :58-67
[10]  
Eckert J Kevin, 2004, J Aging Soc Policy, V16, P49, DOI 10.1300/J031v16n02_04