Search

The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of long-term care (LTC) service provision. Country-specific preference weights are required to calculate ASCOT scores. ASCOT has been translated into German, but lacks preference weights for German-speaking countries. This paper aims to establish Austrian preference weights for the German version of the ASCOT service user measure, using best-worst scaling (BWS). Data were collected using an online BWS-experiment from a general population sample (n=1,000) of Austrian adults. We use a scale-adjusted multinomial logit model (S-MNL) accounting for positioning effects to estimate preference weights. Austrians value the top attribute-levels in the ASCOT domains 'being meaningfully occupied during the day' and 'having control over daily life' most highly, whereas high needs were the least preferred in the domains 'dignity' and 'social participation'. From a methods perspective, we found significant positioning effects only for 'best' choices, with statements at the top of a list being picked more often than those further down in the list. Factors related to survey completion (self-assessed understanding of the tasks and survey completion time) were shown to have the greatest effect on individual choice consistency. The paper provides Austrian preference weights for the German version of ASCOT for service users. The weights also provide insight into how Austrians value different LTC-QoL states. Future research may investigate how values for different LTC-QoL states differ between socioeconomic groups. • Austrian preference weights for the ASCOT-Service User have been developed. • Top levels in the domains 'occupation' and 'control' are valued the most. • Bottom levels for 'dignity' and 'social participation' are valued the least. • Positioning effects matter for 'best', but not for 'worst' choices. • Factors related to survey completion have the greatest effect on choice consistency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A number of European countries have expanded their screening programme considerably during the last decade. Other countries have, however, not expanded their programme substantially. In this paper, I will compare UK and Austria, two countries representing two ends of the European spectrum. Focussing on the decision-making processes behind the design and expansion of newborn screening, I draw on Sheila Jasanoff''s concept of “civic epistemology” (Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.) to investigate how the chosen countries provide information in order to give account for their respective screening policies. In particular, I analyse how key institutions in the UK and Austria use scientific expertise to explain and justify national screening programmes. For this purpose, I compare the material that is made available to the public, including policy documents, scientific studies, medical guidelines, legal regulation, advisory committee reports and public engagement exercises. It was found that the observed differences in the accountability practices are rooted in nationally traditional forms of policy making. However, whether or not these repertoires become indeed realised is a more contingent matter and is often triggered by events which evoke a response from the medical and policy-making actors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]