Self‐managed aged home care in Australia – Insights from older people, family carers and service providers.

This paper presents findings from the evaluation of an Australian trial of self‐managed home aged care. The self‐management model was codesigned by advocacy organisation COTA Australia, consumers and service providers. The primary aim of the evaluation was to examine whether self‐management improved consumers' perceptions of their choice, control, and wellbeing. The secondary aim was to examine whether provider prior experience with self‐managed packages significantly influenced consumers' perceptions of choice, control and wellbeing, thereby confounded trial effects. A pre‐test post‐test quasi‐experimental design and mixed‐methods design were used to collect data over nine months in 2018–2019. The pre‐trial methods and findings have been published. The post‐trial evaluation replicated the pre‐trial data collection method of an online survey (n = 60) and semi‐structured telephone interviews with consumers (n = 9), family carers (n = 13), and consumers and carers jointly (n = 2), totalling 24 interviews. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were also conducted with CEOs and senior managers from each of the seven providers (n = 14). Three providers had prior experience supporting self‐management. Parametric and non‐parametric tests examined the statistical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and framed according to self‐determination principles and ecological systems theory. Both datasets demonstrated that consumers reported greater choice and control at post‐trial than pre‐trial. This finding was not affected by providers' prior experience with self‐management; therefore, it was not a confounding factor. Participants reported improved wellbeing in interviews, however this was not reinforced statistically. Key desirable features of self‐management included greater autonomy and control over spending, recruiting support staff and paying lower administration fees. There was no evidence of increased risks or fraud. The research limitations included a small sample size, convenience sampling with providers recruiting interview participants, no control group and differences in trial implementation. The findings support the expansion of self‐management opportunities and more comprehensive evaluations that use mixed methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]